Preserved Topic: Peanut Gallery for "Does God Exist?" III (Page 3 of 3)

quote:

---

the preconceptions of man and the church have limited God to how He did certain things, scripture didn't.

---

Because that was also written by Man...therefore limiting Him, as well...

Because a 'real' Supreme Being would be so far from being comprehensible, or describable, that words would not do the subject justice. This being would also (in such an autonomous universe) not in the least bit be interested in us specifically...but as a component from that which was created...if at all.

For if the above case is not true...then it is by no means a Supreme Being, now, is it...

Interesting is the case that nobody is really considering that the Creator of the Universe may not be a Supreme Being...but rather just a being...like any other...albeit an advanced one.

Fig:

quote:

---

why is it so hard to believe that the creation of the universe was any different? that God didn't simply set things into motion like He wanted?

---

But why should we believe this? Because it says so in your Holy Book? Well there are other Holy Books (and oral traditions) which suggest different things - why is yours right?

WS has touched on a point I was thinking of just before - why God it could just as easily be the Great World Turtle laying an egg, or Santa or the Easter Bunny or some Ascended Master working outside of the laws of time and space or some transdimensional entity operarting outside of our laws of Physics (we could just be in some childs snowstorm globe)? As WS touched on what if we evolved so we did know everything and we relsied that not only was there no God but no natural process that would start the Big Bang and we have to actually go back and start it. Or perhaps there is no beginning and no end - at the start and end of the Universe the laws of Time and Space are very different what if the collapsing universe spawns itself again in a huge loop.

There are a huge number of scenarios (some of those above are admittedly silly but to all intents and purposes have the same likelihood as a scenario involving a God) some of them invovle a 'God' some of them are purely natural process and I'm sure there are plenty of (more realistic) theories on this.

The big question is why do you think a God did it - Occam's Razor would suggest that this is a unneccesarily complicated answer and in fact, as WS has said, involves further questions and assumptions?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I just feel the need to share this.

While away at a condo for a week, I met a girl, she was my age and she was a wicken. For those of you who don't know wicken is witchcraft practiced under white magic, as a spiritual enlightment.

Well I got into a 5 1/2 hour conversation of all kinds of things. She told me how all religions came from peganism, which I didn't believe, but when she told me she was wicken I started to ask questions. I asked her if she could do something magical or sureal. She told me she didn't have the shit to do it there but there was 1 thing she could do mentally to me that might light my fire. She held my hand and asked for an adress, State, City, Street, House number, and Zip code. So I told her my house back in kentucky. While still holding my palm we sat at a table for about 5-10 minutes of silence. And then she told me all about my house, she told me my hosue was white, paint chips falling off due to vitorian aging, she told me how my house was an office on the bottom and the living space on the top, she told me the colors of my room, which are midnight blue and sky blue, she told me about my guitar, she even mentioned my 6 cats. And I was speechless for about 30 seconds because all she had told me was true.

And needless to say I was scared to fucking death.


_____________________
I'd sell, my soul, my self
esteem, a dollar at a time.

Emps, you make it sound as if all holy books are of equal credibility. Is that your position?

InSiDeR, you spoke to this girl for 5 1/2 hours before she told you these things, right? Don't you think it's possible she was able to piece a few things together from that info? There is an actual technique for doing that sort of thing. I'm not completely dismissing the possibility she has some supernatural abilities but what you described happens all the time on the psychic network.

No bugs, you totally missed the point. It wasn't 5 1/2 hours and then the palm reading, it was more like in between the 5 1/2 hours, and within all 5 1/2 hours I didn't even mention to her I lived in kentucky, we just basically talked about music, concerts, and religions/beliefs, nothing real personal except she showed me some pictures of her friends thats it.

By the way this thread is getting way to big.

Bugs: Of course not - my Imperial Bible isn't worth the human skin I'm writng it on but beyond such extreme examples who is to judge these things in an unbiased way and what criteria would you use to assess them?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

InSiDeR, you should tell her she can make a million bucks if she can really do that. There's an organization that will do that assuming she can do what you said under scientifically controlled circumstances.

Emps, what do you mean who is to judge? Everyone has to decide that for themselves. How does anybody decide to believe anything whether it be that Napoleon was a real person to whether we all evolved from lesser life forms? We can only look at the data we wish to and make that decision individually.

But this means that some holy books should have more or less evidence to back them up. As an example, why don't we take the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament and compare how archaeology supports each of them. There is a huge difference there. The OT has quite a bit of verification (as far as city locations, geography and such) whereas there has yet to be found even one piece of archaeological support for the Joseph Smith's claims.

So you ask "why is yours right?" but I should have thought the answer was clear. The only way someone should claim that their holy book is right or at least "more right" than another must be based on supporting evidence. And let me be clear that the evidence should be wide ranging and not just limited to one field or another.

[edit]Umm... I'm probably just being really dense but when you say Imperial Bible is that just a slam or is there really such a thing?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 07-12-2002).]

But archaeological evidence can't support the exitence of God - it can prove that there were those historical places and probably those people wandering around in the desert but how far can that take us?

What about Scientology vs Christianity?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I totally agree that archaeology only addresses certain things. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we *cannot* prove His existence. We can only cite evidence that can lead to that being the best conclusion. Very few things are proven absolutely and God is certainly no exception there. For instance, did O.J. Simpson kill those two people? We will never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did but is it not extremely likely that is what really happened given the evidence?

Scientology vs. Christianity? Interesting. I just recently started looking closer into Scientology to understand that better. Actually doing the comparison between the two could be quite a job. I simply don't know enough about Scientology yet to do that. Do you have a good understanding of it?

Ok, I don't know much on the Scientology thing either, and I have read the Book!

I would also like to know how they 'Match up'. And what about the Koran vs the Bible? Or the Book of the Hindu vs the Bible? Or Confusius vs the Bible?

Now, those comparisons I would really like to see...from an 'evidence' standpoint...

I thought this page was interesting and a decent overview but it was really just a surface look at the church: http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/index.htm

. . : slicePuzzle

Thanks Bugs! BTW...you do know we are awaiting your answer to the question in the Formal Debate...

Does anyone even know if the other 'Holy Books' have been compared with Archeology/biology/geology...i.e. with scientific findings?

I take it that perhaps the Bible is the forerunner on the list, and therefore, has the most 'research' done on it...or so it seems. Does anyone know? Any links?

I mean, I know that Archeaology is just getting started with the Australian Aboriginals...just wondering if anyone is really exploring the other 'Belief' systems in that manner...

Oh yes, I know it's my turn in the formal. I've been way busy the last several days and really haven't been here as much as normal. I've got a rough draft of my response and I should have it up real soon now

. . : slicePuzzle

hehe...don't forget to save it! *winks at InSiDeR*

Otherwise you'll end up posting....garbage!

And we wouldn't want that...

Oh, I can hardly wait...*rubs hands together in anticipation*

Whoa. With the amount of time that elapses between visits to the Asylum, I don't think there's any way I can keep up with this thread. I make a comment, come back a while later, and you guys are already way past it. So, um, if it's OK with you guys I'll just be stopping in occasionally to throw peanut shells at people.

InSiDeR: it's "wiccan"--and when she finds out you spelled it wrong she's probably going to place a hex on you. I would stock up on holy water if I were you.

*throws peanut shells at InSiDeR and runs like mad*

Actually, I just finished reading a book of my Dads called Occult ABC. It really scared me, especially the real life testimonies of people that were involved in Witchcraft and Satanic Worsphip. I seriously doubt that she peiced together the information, in fact, their are real psychics. But in the real world, the psychichs power isn't some innate spiritual ability, it is the work of Satanic forces. Bugs knows it, don't you Bugs? It's pretty scary...

...Another guy, the author of "The Satan Seller" was a former high priest in the Satanic Church. He was able to use demons to do his work.

sorry, stupid lightning storm here yesterday fried my dsl modem...

anyways, where to start...well, WS, i'm not quite sure why you feel that if God exists He would have to fit certain characteristics that you think He must have. i mean, we can all have our own opinion there but that doesn't mean any of us are right.

as far as why the bible is right as opposed to other books emp, i suppose that's open to individual interpretation. for me it requires no more faith than evolution would why do i think its right? well, because aside from any kind of physical evidence that bugs mentioned i've found it to be true in every respect with regards to my relationship with God. i don't see why the way it describes creation should be any different. the funny thing is that while many in here are blasting it for being grossly inaccurate, um, its not. things in genesis describing the creation as per the big bang are actually pretty dead on if one bothered to really sit back and look at them objectively. check out "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Scroeder, a physicist with a doctorate from MIT, if you're curious.

counterfeit, true for the most part. there's lots of stuff out there you really don't want to mess with. you want some good stories, talk to missionaries who have served in areas in other countries with high levels of occult activity...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Something personal came up, I may have to drop from the debate, and it also may dramatically decrease my average post rate. I will get back to you on this.

InSiDeR: I hope it's nothing serious...

Fig, I think I answered that...because then it wouldn't be a Supreme Being...

Or are you suggesting that God isn't perfect?

If you haven't already, read some of these strips. They're funny as hell and, if you look really really deep, some of them contain a lot of what you guys are talking about here.

sorry WS, i'm not exactly following your reasoning of why God has to follow your logic to be a supreme being. its also early, i have a headache and i haven't had coffee yet

insider, hope everything's ok, hang in there man.

also, an i guess silly question, umm...where exactly can i find the formal debate to read?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Who opened this back up?

Why do you think that anyone did? Why must you people always be looking for some fanciful explanation to what is clearly just the result of an objective natural process... sheesh!