Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[Sri Lumpa]

Player1x3 said:

Sorry for the late reply, for some reason I have totally forgotten about this thread

No problem.

Snow can be seen and felt on Earth, it has been witnessed by millions of people with thier eyes in this physical world, God cant, thats why your explnation fails. And kid from Sahara is likley to learn or at least hear about snow, so thats annotherreason why your debunking failed.

My analogy includes him not being told about snow by people who have experienced it. He is not told and has never seen snow so while he can imagine snow he can't know through faith that snow exist. The same with us and god. The kid can know through experience that snow exists by traveling to a snowy place but until he does he can't know, just believe in it. Similarly we can know through experience if god exist, by dying, but before we do so we can't know that god exist, only believe it.

Well, I thought that was abvoius. I said it 2 posts back, that I dont present this as some divine evidence of God so you shouldnt take it that way. Im am just arguing that faith is very important to realizing and seeing God when you beleive in Him and its far from irrational.

Ok my bad, but I think you understand why I misinterpreted it and why another poster thought it stupid. We also probably have a different definition of rational and irrational as for me faith, not being based on evidence, cannot be rational. Now it doesn't mean that faith cannot use reason as once you take the bible's veracity on faith you can apply reason on its claim to construct religious arguments, but the foundation, being based on faith is irrational.

Faith that shows loving God that promotes peace love, equality and respect? Than yes, they can see it too, as both of those religions promote the same things that God of Christianity and Christ does. Thats not a rebuttal, you almost confirmed my point.

No because I am not restricting it to faiths that are compatible with yours but also those that are not, so that the faith of a muslim jihaddist in a warloving god would be just as valid a path to him knowing such a warlike god exists as your faith of a loving god is a valid path to you knowing that a loving god exists.

To go to the extreme, as you cannot disprove god being an atheist is an act of faith in the absence of a spiritual world so that according to you their faith leads atheists to know that there is no god and no spiritual world. How is it compatible with your faith letting you know that there is a god and a spiritual world?

On a related note are you aware of the Baha'i's faith teaching of the unity of religion?

Depends on the individual and his/hers faith. Spiritual world can bee seen trough faith.

I do not deny that they can be seen through faith. But seeing them through faith does not make them real and given that you will not know if they are real until you die then your faith cannot give you knowledge of them, only a stronger faith in them.

Its true, I speak from experience. Just look at this web site for an example.

And a lot of women dress in teasing ways but it does not provide an excuse if one cannot temper their lust.

We should make a new reality TV show: one insensitive atheist/antitheist (Hitchens?) and one hypersensitive theist in a room for a month. That would be fun (you might want to have bouncers available to separate them before they kill each other).

But its not punishable by law, its only not welcome in some societies ( I already mentioned reasons for this), so they had no reason not to come out

Homosexuality has not been punishable by law either for years yet there still are plenty of people in the closet because they are afraid to be rejected by their family. Legal pressure is not the only thing in play, peer pressure can be even more powerful as it can lead people to break the law.

But you need to look at the main point and purpose of Christianity if you want to fully understand it. Dont focus on small unimportant stories that were given to Christianity by other pagan religions.

I realise that you can perfectly consider christianity as a moral philosophy free from the baggage of its description of this world or of the spiritual world (see atheists for Jesus) and you seem to consider it free of its description of this world but with its description of the spiritual world. Not every christian agrees with you though (like padib who think that if the account of genesis is false then the whole edifice of biblical claims come crashing down) and they tend to be the most vocal minority.

Yes, but the nature of the world isnt the religion's main purpose. For the long time religious institiutions were the only source of science and knowledge, and thats why church manipullated religion and used it to explain the world.

Yes, God commanded 10 commandments and Moses wrote it. Jesus however, coverd all 10 commandments by saying ''Love and accept your God as a saviour and never do anything to others that you dont wish to be done upon yourself'', hence why he accomplished law of Moses and promoted God's comands. But stuff like ''Book of Leviticus (part of the old testament)'' and similar hold no historical nor spirital place in Christianity.

I disagree with your interpretation of the bible as I simply see it as a contradiction in the bible but since I have no intention of trying to convert you to a literal interpretation of the bible I think we will have to agree to disagree.

They are contradictionary because they teach different things. Heck, go read the first 3 sentences of this article

The reason why they are contradictory does not mean they are not. When the old testament holds some action as moral like stoning people to death for various infractions but Jesus says not to resist evil they are both teaching actions and those actions are contradictory (resist evil by stoning people to death vs do not resist evil).

Do you disagree with the morals God and Jesus Christ teached people upon?

No tentirely. I agree with some of them like the golden rule (the spirit of it as read literally it would mean a masochist should inflict pain on others to follow it) but I find the dogma that you cannot enter heaven but through belief in Jesus as a savior to be repugnant as it means that a person doing their best to be as moral as possible but not believing in the supernatural claims of the bible would not be accepted in heaven. In other word you do not go to heaven because you are a good person but because of the arbitrary criteria of faith in a particular person.

This also mean that I find the whole concept of hell (which not all christians believe in though) immoral as being a moral person is not enough to spare you an eternity of torture (and since when is torture moral anyway?).

As for the old testament, I find most of it to be more an account of immorality than I find it to be a moral guide.

I beleive all morals given by God are good, not because they are from God, but because I agree with them

Is there any teaching about moral in the bible (both testaments as they both come from god) with which you do not agree then?

Do you see Leviticus as moral? I certainly don't. Note that seeing Leviticus as not applying to christians does not mean it is not moral as it is part of a moral code given by god.

Not at all. person that is still sane knows that hes having hallucinations, in fact most people realize the things they see during hallucinations are not there.

So are you claiming that you are not sane as you do not realise the hallucinatory nature of your faith derived "knowledge"?

No, they dont. Schizophrenia is mental illness, just because you can see things that arent there due to mental sickness doesnt mean its anything like seeing God trough true faith, and by ''seeing'#  dont mean seeing with your own eyes like hallucinations, but rather know that He is there, feel his presence.

Your argument was faith based. The origin of the faith (religious text or hallucination) is irrelevant; as long as they believe (i.e. have faith) in their hallucination your argument apply.

I mean when a person is convinced that a higher power (God) exists due to his spiritual experince in life and faith.

it really depends on what exactly are you trying to realise or discover trough meditation. Now, I've personally never done anything like meditation myself, so I dont know weather or not you can discover the existance of higher being with meditation . I am not very educated on that stuff

Then I will go back to my example of the atheist's faith. Can an atheist know through his faith that god does not exist? 

But the snow would still exist, and thats the main point. Its not important how you ''imagine'' God on his visual appereance,  what matters is that you have faith in him and that faith is later on proven

But the snow's existence would be totally independent from the boy's faith in it. If I had replaced snow with chasira, a completely fictional substance that i just made up, your argument is that the boy would know through his faith that chasira exists.

His faith in snow or chasira does not mean they exist and does not cause them to exist so it cannot allow him to have the knowledge of their existence. 

Except that those Christians are wrong and your view on Hell is very wrong as well. Hell isnt a place , its a state of soul where a person PUT HIMSELF INTO. Its a state of soul in after life where soul is without god, but the soul putted it self there not God, for Gods love towards man is too big for Him to torture and burn his people.Stuff like fire, demons and torture are used as symbolics to present the afterlife without God.  

It may be wrong but it seems to be the view of hell offered by most of christianity. for reference my christian parents do not believe in an everlasting hell where people are tortured but believe in what they call gehenna, where souls not accepted by god are destroyed (i.e. a one time event instead of everlasting torture).

You example fails, God would never hurt a person.

Then why all the laws punishable by death in the old testament?

And Jesus really did exist, its a historical proven fact.

As far as I know the only eyewitness accounts are found in the bible which cannot be used as a source of its own historicity and there is no Roman record of his crucifixion. While it doesn't disprove his existence it certainly mean that it is not historically proven.

However I was not claiming that he did not exist, I said "like the deity of Jesus". Are you saying that Jesus's status as a deity is an historically proven fact and not a subjective belief?

You dont have to beleive Jesus Christ was son of God, just beleive in his teachings.

That's not what the bible says:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

Believes in him, not believe in his teachings.

If you interpret the bible differently that is your right but I do not find it supported by the bible itself.

If it has huge amount of evidence supporting it why dont you beleive in it and why is it still considerd a theory?

Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation is still a theory. So is Einstein's theory of General Relativity that proved Newton's theory incorrect because of its incompleteness.

You do not seem to understand that scientific theories are not proven, merely supported by facts.

And I do not believe in it because it is not an act of faith. I don't believe in gravity either but I accept Newton's theory as a very good explanation and Einstein's theory as an even better one though less practical as it is more complicated (for example NASA uses Newton's theory to launch rockets as the relativistic effects are monimal enough to ignore them for that purpose).

I don't believe in evolution but I do believe that it represents the best scientific explanation of the multitude of facts that supports it.

It is a subtle distinction but it means that if somebody came up with a theory that better explained those facts I would not have difficulty accepting that theory as the best explanation.