POLL: Is there a God ??
- Thread starter megablue
- Start date
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
The poll should have specified WHICH god. I'm fairly certain that the 76% that voted for yes meant, "yes the xian god that I was taught to believe in exists". If it asked if Zeus exists, those same 76% would have answered no.
And, if there is one true God, that would be the correct answer. Because Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais have a cute, but irrelevant, comment that people like to parrot, that does not change the fact that if there is one God, He is and the others do not.
^^^^
Key word there is “if”
You can believe there is. I can believe there’s not. Neither one of us can definitively prove the existence or non-existence of a true god or gods.
Key word there is “if”
You can believe there is. I can believe there’s not. Neither one of us can definitively prove the existence or non-existence of a true god or gods.
He does not believe there “is a one true god or gods.” I believe there is a God. Seems one of us is definitely wrong. If both are wrong, my comment is still correct. Ron can explain how we can both be correct.
Maybe there’s a 3rd option none of us even know about. Or a 4th? Something new and cool we’ve never heard about.
When I think of the poll question I'd assume it's talking about the God of Christianity as most people here are of that religion. Both can be wrong in the sense that there's a supreme being out there but it's not the God of the bible. If this is the case then an athiest/agnostic like myself would be wrong but so would a believer in the Christian God.
Sure. This has been belabored, but I did not say we both could not be wrong. I only said one of us definitely is wrong.
Here is a 20-minute video from a few months back by Alex O’Connor, who has a regular YouTube podcast entitled WITHIN REASON that covers many interesting and controversial topics.
He is very young, bright, sincere and engaging, I think.
People on both sides of “Is there a God?” might find his presentation here quite honest, if nothing else.
He is very young, bright, sincere and engaging, I think.
People on both sides of “Is there a God?” might find his presentation here quite honest, if nothing else.
Last edited:
He's a smart kid; I've been a fan for a long time. I think there's a very good chance he comes around in the end.
Here he is making a point I've made in this thread against the crux of "your" atheist rationale much more effectively than I did.
Catholics, especially, whether devout or lapsed, will get a kick out of this. A funny reminder of early catechism. It ticked me and brought back memories. Very cute … !!
Last edited:
https://documentedhealings.com/category/smith-wigglesworth/
A true living God working through Smith Wigglesworth raising the dead.
A true living God working through Smith Wigglesworth raising the dead.
Engaging smart young man. I just listened to his first hypothesis, which is sad, because he truly sounds angry that he has not had a revelation of God, while detailing what he believes is a resume worthy. I hear him as a less sophisticated analogy. I too was raised Catholic. In my senior year of high school, I decided the rote recitation of creeds and prayers and responses I saw in church could not be the relational response a living god would want. So, rather than routine, I said the words, learned them, so that I could mean them. I tried hard to be the image of a good believer I had conceived. Went to college, and decided it made no sense to me. I too listened to every Christian who approached and sincerely engaged those who presented as kind and thoughtful. I was the true agnostic for much of that time, seeing the possibility for a God, but also seeing what I viewed as reality around me. This was my posture for years, with moments of voiced atheism. Years later, after a “discussion” with a believer who I know loved me, I felt this tinge of hypocrisy. I was talking about the God of the Bible, challenging His existence, and yet, I really only had portions of that Bible read to me. I had not read the four gospels in their entirety. I decided to do that so that I could know and better refute what they believed. I was not truly seeking God, but more arguments that opposed. Into the Gospel of Matthew, my heart completely flipped. How could that be after listening to this young man’s stated attempts to find God?
And, yet, it did.
So, I guess he can attest to being the one, if the only one, non-believer who claims sincerely to have sought and not found (yet) and, therefore, if even one, his claim must be true, but he must account for those of us who were surprised by faith when the god he describes does not exist.
He has based his first point on his limited perspective. Fair enough. But, explain the perspective of the guy who was surprised to find he believed in God when his motives, while convicted by honest humility, were not pure.
It is a quandary for him. One he can overlook by being self-centered, but one that exists, nevertheless.
Much like O’Connor’s, yours is an honest, sincere and well-articulated description of how you moved from spiritual sobriety to a position of deep and fervent faith. Thanks for the post.
Last edited:
In Jesus’s banquet parable, people chose possessions, works, and relationships over the kingdom of God. Seems like time passes, people don’t change.
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.””
Mark 10:45 NIV
Mark 10:45 NIV
Been a long time since I checked in on this thread, and it seems like the same old stuff is just getting re-hashed.
The question: Is there a God (Creator) has nothing to do with the God of Abraham.
It's a binary question: You either believe that an external force created life, OR, life arose on it's own, by serendipitous circumstances, where there was no life before.
You can't prove a Creator.
You can't prove that life spontaneously arose.
What is the common thread? Faith...
The question: Is there a God (Creator) has nothing to do with the God of Abraham.
It's a binary question: You either believe that an external force created life, OR, life arose on it's own, by serendipitous circumstances, where there was no life before.
You can't prove a Creator.
You can't prove that life spontaneously arose.
What is the common thread? Faith...
Yeah, neither side can technically prove one way or another, but I'll take my chances that a fairy sky being is as mythical as centaurs and mintaurs.
Fair enough, as long as you accept the fact that abiogenesis is every bit as mythical. LOL
Your myth vs. my myth. 😄
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
I believe that is far more likely that evolution is a real thing. We have evidence, and we can trace it backwards, same as a detective solving a crime, or a doctor diagnosing an illness.
We have traced the line of advancement through fossil records and DNA testing. We know that humans and kangaroos share DNA so similarly that it is believed we are on the same leg of the family tree, and likely branched off about 150 million years ago. Once we follow the evidence and go backward, it leads one to believe that life somehow began, and then advanced.
I would be extremely interested in seeing any evidence that can trace female human genetic material back to a male human rib bone.
The hardest part in the whole discussion is how can the average human brain grasp the time that it takes. It's very difficult to envision 3.7 billion years of evolution. It's much simpler the grasp the idea that it happened in the blink of eye only 6,000 years ago.
And, yes, it all does require some amount of faith. I'm not 100% in lockstep with the evolutionary explanation. But I am absolutely 100% in denial of ancient myths.
I'm not talking about evolution. Of course evolution exists. I'm talking about abiogenesis, the start of life, from which living creatures evolved. And, as it stands now, the belief that life spawned on it's own, from lifeless matter is nothing more than a faith based belief, exactly like the belief that life was "created". Those are the ONLY two options, and neither of them has a shred of evidence to support them. So, in essence, they are both 'faith based" religions. (I'm also not talking about the God of Abraham, etc. I'm talking about a Creator)
Given all of that, they are both equally plausible, logically speaking.
Given all of that, they are both equally plausible, logically speaking.
Last edited:
Macro evolution is filled with holes that even scientist realize. We know there is a common design. Which points to a designer. Abiogenesis and macro evolution takes huge faith. More to me that common design. You have chosen your belief, but science is not at the root of that faith any more than science supports mine.
This is a circular argument, and we've been around the circle a thousand times in this thread. MIght be time to retire it.
Although it is probably outside the discussion of creator versus abiogenesis and this thread's main thrust, as a side note with no real point to be made by it, I am amazed that it appears that a truly incredible number of all the species that have ever inhabited earth have died out. There are various estimates everywhere, but the number appears to be well in excess of 90%, with some estimates as high as 99.9% extinction. Mind-boggling stuff ... !!
Now ... back to the regular programming !!
Now ... back to the regular programming !!
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Evolution, as I understand it, is simply the trail of evidence that leads backward to a beginning. And, again, like a detective following evidence to solve a mystery, I think we need to employ that same method to solve the mystery of life’s beginning. Follow the known, provable evidence backwards and see if it leads to an answer.
The idea of a creator seems to ignore the trail of evidence and it starts with an answer, then moves forward. Some unknown, unseen entity created life, and now here we are.
In my very humble opinion, these two ideas are not equal. Not even close to being equal. They are polar opposites.
The idea of a creator seems to ignore the trail of evidence and it starts with an answer, then moves forward. Some unknown, unseen entity created life, and now here we are.
In my very humble opinion, these two ideas are not equal. Not even close to being equal. They are polar opposites.
Science does not support a god. It never has and never will. It's dishonest to suggest it does.
This is wrong. Science supports the evidence for God most than it supports evidence of no god.
Evolution, as a theory, is failing. Evolutionary scientists know that.
What we know is there was a beginning to time, matter, space, and life. There is no trail back that explains how life came into being. None. Yet, the complexity of the most simple life form we know is extreme. In a world where science demonstrates entropy is the rule, somehow the first life form came into being and is extremely complex AND found a way to replicate.
That takes a lot of faith to believe happened without a designer. Seriously.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
My favorite part of scientific theory is that it’s presented as a possible answer, with no requirement to believe or disbelieve.
My least favorite part of religious mythology is that it’s presented as the definitive answer, and there’s a specific requirement. Believe, or be tortured for eternity.
My least favorite part of religious mythology is that it’s presented as the definitive answer, and there’s a specific requirement. Believe, or be tortured for eternity.
Sure, buddy, sure. Being in a cult really does remove critical thinking skills.
Pretty simple for me...if God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not.
Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.
Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing.
Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.
Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.
Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing.
Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.
Look, when you lose a debate, it is common on the playground for the kids just to name-call. The “I got critical thinking skills, but don’t have to prove it” argument is a doozy. Thanks for playing.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
In other words, without a master, whose slave will you be?
Life doesn’t need some deep theological meaning. Can’t one simply relish the fact that they get to live and love and experience and enjoy? Travel, eat drink and be merry, enjoy sex, share moments with your tribe, choose to be happy. Live life as best you can in the brief moment you are alive. I find meaning in all these things.
It will all stop for you very soon and you will cease to exist. If you find a way to accept that fact, each day brings its own new meaning.
