Why should one care if ''God'' exists?

[bhsmte]

I think the main thing to focus on is that it's not really about believing in Christianity (some say a religion, a set of rules to follow), but rather in Christ Himself as our redeemer. It's a personal relationship with Him. What God did for us through Jesus was personal, and it was more than we can imagine. I wouldn't want to face God after rejecting that gift.

Well, you don't appear to reject what you call a gift, so you should be ok in your own mind, correct?

 

[Aldebaran]

The notion that an infallible deity exists is a very large assumption to begin with, let alone that humans are somehow "infallible." In other words, did god use fallacious reasoning to create man, or did man use fallacious reasoning to create god?

God had His own reasons to create man. His reasoning isn't mine to judge.

Man uses fallacious reasoning to create other ideas of what God is as opposed to what the bible has shown us about Him. I see those fallacious ideas constructed by atheists all the time on threads such as this.

 

[fireof god98]

God had His own reasons to create man. His reasoning isn't mine to judge.

Man uses fallacious reasoning to create other ideas of what God is as opposed to what the bible has shown us about Him. I see those fallacious ideas constructed by atheists all the time on threads such as this.

does not a perfect being have no desire. and yet god had a desire to make man?

 

[Aldebaran]

does not a perfect being have no desire. and yet god had a desire to make man?

What? Where do you get that from???

 

[UnReAL13]

God had His own reasons to create man. His reasoning isn't mine to judge.

Man uses fallacious reasoning to create other ideas of what God is as opposed to what the bible has shown us about Him. I see those fallacious ideas constructed by atheists all the time on threads such as this.

I still don't see why the Biblical god is the "absolute truth", or how it's a fallacy to question the nature of "god". I'm sure you'll give me some good old-fashioned circular logic though. As an Ignostic, I think finding a verifiable definition for "god" is the most important aspect to focus on in theology. And no, the Bible is not the evidence, the Bible is the claim.

 

[Aldebaran]

I still don't see why the Biblical god is tbe "absolute truth", or how it's a fallacy to question the nature of "god". I'm sure you'll give me some good old-fashioned circular logic though. As an Ignostic, I think finding a verifiable definition for "god" is the most important aspect to focus on in theology. And no, the Bible is not the evidence, the Bible is the claim.

[FONT=&quot]Dude, you need to expand your mental universe by also believing in the transcendent things that the theist believes in: God, souls, angels and demons, for example. The atheist restricts himself to a sort of tunnel vision. If you don't break out of that tunnel vision, how can you expect to see anything beyond what you currently think?
[/FONT]

 

[UnReAL13]

[FONT=&quot]Dude, you need to expand your mental universe by also believing in the transcendent things that the theist believes in: God, souls, angels and demons, for example. The atheist restricts himself to a sort of tunnel vision. If you don't break out of that tunnel vision, how can you expect to see anything beyond what you currently think?
[/FONT]

Been there, done that. I spent the majority of my life believing that these ideas were real, without questioning it. Now I'm just looking for evidence to verify ANY spiritual claim, and questioning, yet I'm the one who's being close-minded?

I would also say that being Ignostic is a distinct position from Atheism.

 

[Aldebaran]

Been there, done that. I spent the majority of my life believing that these ideas were real, without questioning it. Now I'm just looking for evidence to verify ANY spiritual claim, and questioning, yet I'm the one who's being close-minded?

When you reject any evidence brought before you, then yes, you're being closed minded.

You radically misconstrue the plentiful evidence for God, and you do this because of your false worldview, which tells you that only the physical really exists. Before you examine the evidence, you think you know that nothing non-physical actually exists, and this assumption governs how you respond to the evidence.

 

[UnReAL13]

When you reject any evidence brought before you, then yes, you're being closed minded.

You radically misconstrue the plentiful evidence for God, and you do this because of your false worldview, which tells you that only the physical really exists. Before you examine the evidence, you think you know that nothing non-physical actually exists, and this assumption governs how you respond to the evidence.

So many Straw Mans, I don't know where to begin...

I'm willing to examine evidence that might verify a claim. If you think you have some, then go ahead and present it.

My worldview is not materialism. I've stated before that I'm open to the idea of higher realities, or whatever may exist. If there's evidence to verify a claim, it's worth considering. I don't really have a "worldview" as I consider many concepts as being "possible".

I don't claim to "know" anything of a metaphysical nature, and that's exactly what the whole point of being Ignostic/Agnostic is! The view that these ideas can't be "known" based on our current level of understanding. I respond to evidence with an objective and open mind, not with the bias of a presupposed belief system.

 

[Deidre32]

Yes, that's right. There is no objective evidence to support the existence of a deity, or any other spiritual realm. We can guess. We can say maybe there is something higher than us, but that's not evidence, and neither is the Bible. If people wish to believe that a god exists, that's fine, but faith, no matter how passionate one feels about it, is not objective evidence. I'm open minded however, to the possibiity of another realm beyond the physical. There is still much research being done relating to consciousness, and so forth. But, I just don't believe that any one religion has it right over another.

 

[fireof god98]

Yes, that's right. There is no objective evidence to support the existence of a deity, or any other spiritual realm. We can guess. We can say maybe there is something higher than us, but that's not evidence, and neither is the Bible. If people wish to believe that a god exists, that's fine, but faith, no matter how passionate one feels about it, is not objective evidence. I'm open minded however, to the possibiity of another realm beyond the physical. There is still much research being done relating to consciousness, and so forth. But, I just don't believe that any one religion has it right over another.

it is hard to find evidence for god who exists outside the universe and is not even within the genus of being itself. god is not really the highest being rather is the sheer act to be itself (this is why i never cared for dawkins ``wild spaghetti monster``) to be me is to be a human being but to be god is to be to be. so if this is the case i don't imagine you are going to find many foot prints of god or any external evidence within the world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

this is why i never cared for dawkins ``wild spaghetti monster``

Dawkins did not create that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

God had His own reasons to create man. His reasoning isn't mine to judge.

That is the very essence of blind faith.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Aldebaran]

That is the very essence of blind faith.

Do I really need to know God's reason for creating man before believing in Him? That's like saying I need to know the reason my car was made before I can drive it. (Yeah, I know. It was made to make a profit for the company)

 

[fireof god98]

Dawkins did not create that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

the point remains the same

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do I really need to know God's reason for creating man before believing in Him? That's like saying I need to know the reason my car was made before I can drive it.

Actually, no, that isn't the best analogy. You said that you not qualified to judge his reasoning. I'm not making any statement about your knowledge of God's reasons, or lack thereof. Saying that you aren't qualified to judge means that you are intentionally shutting off your brain.

This isn't like driving a car without understanding the fine points of car engines. You might not be a car mechanic, but presumably with enough training you too would be able to judge the quality of the reasoning of car mechanics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Deidre32]

The car analogy is not comparable. Cars exist, objectively. People can see and touch a car to verify its existence. Not saying that a spiritual realm couldn't exist but there is no objective proof of the spiritual realm. The Bible isn't proof.

Rinse and repeat this same discussion over and over. Whatever.

 

[Aldebaran]

Actually, no, that isn't the best analogy. You said that you not qualified to judge his reasoning. I'm not making any statement about your knowledge of God's reasons, or lack thereof. Saying that you aren't qualified to judge means that you are intentionally shutting off your brain.

It's called understanding my limits. There are plenty of "armchair judges" that like to tap away on their keyboards about things they know nothing about, whether it's about politics, war, religion--you name it. Now you want me to be an armchair judge of God Himself and say I'm shutting off my brain if I don't. Wow.

 

[fireof god98]

The car analogy is not comparable. Cars exist, objectively. People can see and touch a car to verify its existence. Not saying that a spiritual realm couldn't exist but there is no objective proof of the spiritual realm. The Bible isn't proof.

Rinse and repeat this same discussion over and over. Whatever.

well if you go into a room you don't see the architect but you know the room was the result of a architect planning the room.

 

[Aldebaran]

well if you go into a room you don't see the architect but you know the room was the result of a architect planning the room.

Yes, that's a much better analogy than mine. I'm sure many people will agree that I'm not all that great with analogies!