Is Believing In God...?

[jay_a2j]

There were a lot more reports than just from one person Luns. Back in the day, 2006 maybe, it seemed like every second story I read about Bush was somebody attributing him with comments regarding God and Iraq.

Ya know, I was against the Iraq war. Then looking closer at the situation and what scripture says about Iraq or "Babylon", Saddam had to be ousted in order for "Babylon" to be rebuilt thus fulfilling scripture. So did God tell Bush to invade Iraq? I don't know but it did allow for a coming rebuilt Babylon. If I didn't already believe that the Bible is God's word, the unfolding events that are setting up to fulfill the prophesies within it would be scarily unnerving. Watch for Iraq to become "the greatest place on Earth" in regards to how rich it becomes. "Has there ever been a city as great as this?"

[KoolBak]

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[comic boy]

There were a lot more reports than just from one person Luns. Back in the day, 2006 maybe, it seemed like every second story I read about Bush was somebody attributing him with comments regarding God and Iraq.

Ya know, I was against the Iraq war. Then looking closer at the situation and what scripture says about Iraq or "Babylon", Saddam had to be ousted in order for "Babylon" to be rebuilt thus fulfilling scripture. So did God tell Bush to invade Iraq? I don't know but it did allow for a coming rebuilt Babylon. If I didn't already believe that the Bible is God's word, the unfolding events that are setting up to fulfill the prophesies within it would be scarily unnerving. Watch for Iraq to become "the greatest place on Earth" in regards to how rich it becomes. "Has there ever been a city as great as this?"

Yes Yes I know its laughable but there are some powerfull people in this world who believe this kind of nonsense, I doubt religion played a huge part in the decision to invade Iraq but its frightening to me that such a thing is even concievable.

[john9blue]

Why do people insist on comparing God to unicorns, fairies, FSM's, etc.? These beings are finite because you are giving them properties by naming them according to mythological figures. God is unique and infinite. Saying "God is like these things and these things don't exist, therefore God doesn't exist" is wrong because:

- God is not like those things
- Those things probably don't exist, but it's possible to imagine a scenario in which they did (e.g. Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, etc.). If it's possible for God to exist, and the universe arguably couldn't exist if God didn't exist, then God arguably exists.

The whole thing is a ridiculous straw man and I can't believe people are so idiotic as to make this comparison.

[MeDeFe]

- God is not like those things
- Those things probably don't exist, but it's possible to imagine a scenario in which they did (e.g. Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, etc.). If it's possible for God to exist, and the universe arguably couldn't exist if God didn't exist, then God arguably could exist.

Fixed.

[luns101]

There were a lot more reports than just from one person Luns. Back in the day, 2006 maybe, it seemed like every second story I read about Bush was somebody attributing him with comments regarding God and Iraq.

...and I'm reasonably sure that a majority of those "lots more other reports" were based on the Sha'ath lie. News outlets staffed with employees who were opposed to the Iraq war probably ran with the story and constantly repeated it. Take into account the anti-Dubya bias and pro-secular humanist worldview when reading those reports.

I think Bush said that God told him to run for president. Not sure, I'm no good at looking quotes up on Wikipedia, and you can never rely on the validation of sources from that website.

Yeah, I've read that. The context of that account is that he felt called by God to lead the country. It's not like he said God talks to him and gives him instructions. I've read the left-wing accounts as they change the wording to "Bush believes God talks to him" or something like that. The intention by left-wing media outlets is to paint a picture of Bush as someone who has conversations with the Almighty in the same way that one person talks to another.

Besides, to secular humanists, the very idea of the supernatural is anathema. So any reference from a world leader to God, the Lord, or a higher power is despised and ridiculed. It just can't possibly happen!

And, Luns, was that Abbas...or Hammas?

Hmmmm...let's ask for confirmation from a reputable source. He knows best:

[john9blue]

Fixed.

No, if you take a premise (God doesn't exist) and show it leads to a contradiction (the universe doesn't exist) then the premise is always false. Some arguments (the cosmological is my personal favorite) attempt to do this.

Unless you're saying there's a middle ground between "God exists" and "God doesn't exist", which is wrong...

[notyou2]

Agnostics beg to differ

[MeDeFe]

Fixed.

No, if you take a premise (God doesn't exist) and show it leads to a contradiction (the universe doesn't exist) then the premise is always false. Some arguments (the cosmological is my personal favorite) attempt to do this.

You did not show that.

You did show that if it is conceivable that god exists, and if it is conceivable that the universe couldn't exist witout god, then it is conceivable that god exists.

Nothing more.

[john9blue]

Agnostics beg to differ

No, agnostics just don't buy the cosmological argument. Neither do atheists, but they have their own arguments to "prove" that God doesn't exist.

[john9blue]

You did not show that.

You did show that if it is conceivable that god exists, and if it is conceivable that the universe couldn't exist witout god, then it is conceivable that god exists.

Nothing more.

That's why I put "arguably" twice. If the first "arguably" is deemed to be true, then the second is as well because the two premises imply the conclusion.

[MeDeFe]

Indeed they do.

If A and B then A

That is what you have shown. Unfortunately for you that is trivial.

[notyou2]

Well, thats good enough for me.

He is real

Praise the Lord

[john9blue]

Indeed they do.

If A and B then A

That is what you have shown. Unfortunately for you that is trivial.

If it's possible for God to exist premise A, given to be true , and the universe arguably couldn't exist premise B, conclusion of the cos. argument among others, hence "arguably" if God didn't exist premise C, used in the cos. argument , then God arguably exists conclusion from premises A and B, therefore true if you accept the cos. argument or others, hence "arguably" .

That's about as simple as it gets. If A and B, then C. Really A is unnecessary to all but strong atheists, B can stand alone with the obvious premise that "the universe exists".

Surely you'll accept that comparisons between God and characters established as fictional (aka the Backglass argument) don't prove that God is fictional?

Well, thats good enough for me.

He is real

Praise the Lord

Kind of funny how people like you accept arguments like the FSM based on how funny they are. I guess you respond to that part of the brain the strongest?

[Koesen]

Neither do atheists, but they have their own arguments to "prove" that God doesn't exist.

Atheism isn't about proving that God doesn't exist but about pointing out there is no scientifically acceptable proof that He does, and therefore the assumption is that He doesn't.

[Nola_Lifer]

Neither do atheists, but they have their own arguments to "prove" that God doesn't exist.

Atheism isn't about proving that God doesn't exist but about pointing out there is no scientifically acceptable proof that He does, and therefore the assumption is that He doesn't.

To be honest, You're right that Atheist aren't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or Gods, and in my sense of Atheism, they don't care if science proves the existence of God or lack of existence. Maybe, you've read to much Nietzsche, he thinks God is dead. To be honest, I don't think there is anything wrong with Atheism, but there are issues with Religion; however, arguments about God, god, or gods, is basically pointless, for "the closer you get to describing the Tao, the farther away you get." Meaning our phenomenology only allows us to understand and know so far. There are many things we don't understand or even can see! If this were a thousand years ago and I were speaking about Atoms, you would say I was a nutter. How quickly things changes with science right!? Whether there is some higher entity would be beyond our thinking and our scientific study. I guess that's why some religions have the term Faith. Now, having said all that, it doesn't matter whether or no you believe in other deities or not. What does matter is that you realize that every single person and every single animal and every singles dust, every single WHATEVER, is all connected and intertwined like a Celtic Knot. If you know and understand that, then you shall who cares what god has to do with it. YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!

[Phatscotty]

It doesn't matter if god is real or not. There is a lot to be said about the power of prayer and hope as healing.....

[Koesen]

Neither do atheists, but they have their own arguments to "prove" that God doesn't exist.

Atheism isn't about proving that God doesn't exist but about pointing out there is no scientifically acceptable proof that He does, and therefore the assumption is that He doesn't.

in my sense of Atheism, they don't care if science proves the existence of God or lack of existence.

In my sense of atheism (and I am an atheist), an honest atheist would accept the existence of God if it were convincingly proven by science (or by a personal experience that doesn't allow another explanation).

Not saying that I think that's going to happen, but any openminded person should be willing to change his point of view if sufficient evidence arises, regardless of what that point of view is.

[john9blue]

Atheism isn't about proving that God doesn't exist but about pointing out there is no scientifically acceptable proof that He does,

I realize this and I believe in God.

and therefore the assumption is that He doesn't.

To be a pure atheist you have to prove that God doesn't exist. You're probably an agnostic atheist, which means you believe the evidence against God is stronger than the evidence for God. But it's still a belief. Any atheist who's not agnostic is basically wrong, because they can't justify their position.

Anyone who truly lacked belief wouldn't call themselves a "theist" or "atheist", simply "agnostic".

I'm sick of arguing about this to be honest, because most people don't understand...

[Chao]

Yes, the world would be better off if everyone was atheist.

That being said, the world would be better off if everyone was Christian or Islamic or Jewish or Voodoo or whatever.

If the entire world followed 1 set of beliefs, we'd be better off.

[MrPanzerGeneral]

I think some of you need to visit http://www.landoverbaptist.org/.

Hallellujah. Praise Be. Amen.

[notyou2]

What a fabulous site.....it speaks nothing but the truth

Thanks MPG

[Nola_Lifer]

Yes, the world would be better off if everyone was atheist.

That being said, the world would be better off if everyone was Christian or Islamic or Jewish or Voodoo or whatever.

If the entire world followed 1 set of beliefs, we'd be better off.

So what your saying is that if everyone was one then we wouldn't have to argue about things, right? We are all interconnected or inter-are.

[Koesen]

Since you're sick of this argument, I don't intend to waste a lot of time on it, but with all due respect to your personal beliefs, which I do not intend to change, your definition of atheism is simply wrong.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any God. An agnostic is someone who leans to the belief there is no God, but who doesn't go beyond skepticism (rather than outright disbelief). Look at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic, for example.

Proving God does not exist doesn't enter the equation. It is never about evidence against God. It's about the lack of evidence for Him.

(Besides, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. All you can do is refute the alleged proof that it does. I suppose this is where you draw the conclusion from that atheism is a belief like theism, but I think there's a fundamental distinction between believing something exists even though you have no proof on the one hand and believing something doesn't exist because you have no proof on the other.)

[Koesen]

The above was in reply to john9blue, but several new replies appeared while I was writing mine.