[Winstinology]

All I am saying man is why do you need to have that higher power, that light at the end of the tunnel to do good in this life and to be a good person. I don't, you know, I don't know, nor could I care less if there is a 'God', or if there is something after death, all I know is that I enjoy my life, no matter how insignificant it may be, and I will always strive to do good, protect my family, and help my fellow man.

And to point out a fact, about 70% of all religious people believe in some form of evolution or another. Just simply because the cards are laid out on the table and it's ignorant to deny it. People, good Christians, Muslims, Bhudists, Hindus you name it. A vast majority of them have found a way in their belief system to tie in the facts of science. It doesn't mean that your wrong.

Also, explain why only 10% of Christian colleges in the U.S. teach full-blown creationism. It's because even hardcore Christians can't deny the fact that evolution has played a major role in history.

[BenignDesign]

who's to say that a higher power didn't create evolution? perhaps it's ALL part of a divine plan...

[Winstinology]

Haha.. Let me point this out..


ME == Have Girlfriend + Baby;

YOU == Post a topic about whether or not you look like a girl;


Hmmm..

OMG, Don't you people fucking get it!? MARRIAGE, was created by the CHURCH OF GOD (let me point it out that I am an atheist again also), It was created for a man and a women, by THE CHURCH OF GOD... The Bible! Clearly states that it is against the CHURCH to have sex with the same sex..

How the fuck do you people not get it.. It goes against the establishment that created the title!

If you wanna have gay marriage, DONT CALL IT MARRIAGE!

Dumbasses!

BenignDesign, on 8 Aug, 2008 - 04:22 PM, said:

who's to say that a higher power didn't create evolution? perhaps it's ALL part of a divine plan...

Which starts us on another topic.. Intelligent design..

This post has been edited by Winstinology: 08 August 2008 - 04:24 PM

[gabehabe]

Marriage is the bond between two people who love each other.

Why can someone not love someone of the same gender?

And Winstinology, calm down. It was today that someone said that we managed to avoid argument. So chill out, and stop trying to start one.

[Nykc]

What about man|woman / Animal?

What is the opinion on this.

[baavgai]

Nykc, on 8 Aug, 2008 - 07:01 PM, said:

hell every culture has a god of one form or another... There are a lot of wrong people in this world huh?

Oh! Comparative religion. I love this game.

Jews, Muslims, Christians, Catholics: Same thing, all the same trilogy with many spin offs. YHVH, the one true god.

Wiccan: A collection of beliefs fall under this heading. Some have a godhead, others lean toward pure animism.

Taoists: No god here. None. The is only the Universal Tao. You may call this god, but you'd be missing the point.

Buddhists: No god. Buddhism is the most pragmatic, allowing for deities as necessary, like the Tibetian Yama. However, no god is required to be a good Buddhist.

Romans and Greeks believed in many gods: Quite so. However, Greeks and Romans also had beliefs that didn't include any deity at all.

Indians believed in Gods: Again, true. However, Hindu belief is horribly complex. There is the brahman belief that transcends the whole god thing. This is similar to traditional buddhism and doubtless it's progenitor.

So, no, belief in deity like beings is by no means universal. It's also a questionable argument. All of Europe believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, prior to Copernicus. The widespread acceptance of a belief does not validate a belief.

[KYA]

I've heard that comparison before. Arguing that because people thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe does not discredit those who believe God exists.

@winston

If by evolution you mean people and things adapt over time to their environment, then yes I believe in evolution.

[nirvanarupali]

Nice discussion, and I learned all these things in the field of philosophy.
No particular science can answer this discussion such as: Does God exist? Is God real? What is evil? Where evil comes from? And no mathematics can give the formula or equation about morality.

But all these things can be answered in philosophy, and you cannot understand it right away. It would take you years to answer why all these things happen, or exists. Before I give my answers, here are your guides if you want to dig into the rabbit's hole, and find out what is there.

Philosophical Field:

.) Theodicy - The study about "Supreme Being"(philosophy does not use the word "God" since this very limited word.) This all about its existence and essence. How can prove its existence by using logic.

2.) Metaphics- The study of all things and universal principles of reality.
Ex. Necessary being must exist first before contingent being.
3.)Morality- The study about moral norms. (Where these norms come from and how we can apply it in our lives)

4.)Logic (classical and formal)- The study about syllogisms.
(Prerequisite in philosophy)

Back to the question: Is God or Supreme Being real? Yes.

I have been in the position, not to believe in God, for the sake of debate and to understand why they do not believe its existence.

Here is my argument use: Man thinks about God, if he thinks God then God exists if he stop thinking about God, then it ceases to exist. So, therefore, God exist only in the Man's mind but it does not exist in the reality. Since it is only a logical exisitence, this is only considered as relative nothing. So God does not exist at all.

Note: Faith is not use in here, it is all about reason.

I have made a strong foundation of my point, and I have made many opponents, in this philosophical debate.

Since this is an old debate my oponents go back to the Middle Ages, where this was the central discussions of the intellectuals.

Since only one philosopher(Thomas of Aquinas) had made the right answer to this debate then they use it to combat my argument.

Reference: Summa Theologica

Five ways to Prove God's Existence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.

[nirvanarupali]

Theory of evolution is questionable. There is the so called "Missing Link".

Charles Darwin cannot give the link beween the transition of being an ape or monkey to being fully human.

Which means: From being not rational to being rational. (Where is that point? and what era?)

[nirvanarupali]

To sum up:

Big Bang theory, evolution theory. My question is where ALL things come from? Where gases, energy, atom, forces in Big Bang comes from?

Does it come from nothing? Just like magic, it comes out and wow there was big bang?

Logically nothing produces nothing. Is it not come from the UNCAUSED CAUSE to make that cause?

The problem is few of us have tried to dig into the rabbit's hole.

[KYA]

That is quite possibly the most thought out (and longest) post I have ever seen here.

[no2pencil]

Monkeys still exist today. So I never did understand how we 'evolved' from them. I thought evolution changed beings based on survival.

[BenignDesign]

nirvanarupali, on 8 Aug, 2008 - 10:36 PM, said:

Which means: From being not rational to being rational. (Where is that point? and what era?)

Isn't PMS proof enough that rational thought doesn't exist?

[KYA]

stop trying to derail the thread

[BenignDesign]

Party pooper.