StarGateWars Forums

Ashu wrote:If anyone tries to prove/disprove God exists I will laugh in their face.A god that can be measured,quantified,touched,seen and heard is not a god...

Thats true and therefore if someone wants to disprove the fact that there are gods. then they must start by proving all those unexplained stores like big bang and life on earth.. and even after that, god will still exist, because its not worth living without that idea (at least to me)

It's all in the beliefs. I believe the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'm not certain as I do not believe in God or Gods, or anything of the like simply due to the fact that if this God existed, why would he let our race destroy the planet by ravaging it like a plague of locusts?

The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill (if I am not mistaken), and yet it's pretty much made in blood. Look at most of the references in it, and search throughout history books about people like David, Moses, Joshua, and there are others whose names elude me at this moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igYWyL_HebQ
That is part 1 of whta I'm trying to explain about David.

Just look at this history. Some may not believe it to be true, but I believe it is. Nobody is as good as they seem. If it's to good to be true, it bloody well is.

so, in answer to the question posed, i guess that yes, God exists, and her name is spelled H-A-R-U-H-I.

NOOO. MY EYES ARE FOREVER SCORNED.

Noobert wrote:It's all in the beliefs. I believe the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'm not certain as I do not believe in God or Gods, or anything of the like simply due to the fact that if this God existed, why would he let our race destroy the planet by ravaging it like a plague of locusts?

Because he adheres to the whole "Thou shalt not kill" deal. Just waiting on him to figure out he can easily bypass that particular gem by using others to kill. Or did he figure that out already, and is religion pretty much the catalyst of the natural balance restoring itself - through mass slaughter of mankind, back to proper figures.
Is it then not our rebellion against that balancing act, that causes this planetophage behaviour?

God could just smite us. Or, he can be all cool and awesome and use aliens to rend our souls. Most of us are heathen scum anyway, so let's enjoy it while it lasts. *grin*

Noobert wrote:The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill (if I am not mistaken), and yet it's pretty much made in blood. Look at most of the references in it, and search throughout history books about people like David, Moses, Joshua, and there are others whose names elude me at this moment.

Well now, if we all understood and didn't kill, we wouldn't need a rule against killing, don't we?
The point of the stories is to show how the ungodly act of murder (not interchangeable with Gods Wrath as executed by the Kings of Israel) leads inevitably to bad things. (My point about the Wrath is, that in some cases it's God telling the people to slaughter, in which case the "Legislator" basically nullifies his Law regarding certain groups/people. It's an ultimate weapon of doom. Literally.)

By showing us how those who sin come to fall, the bible tries to tell us that we shouldn't -for example- murder. Or lie. Or something.

As for the apparently more superficial rules, like "don't eat this meat", just look at the diseases -for example- pigs spread. Pretty nice of God to tell some people that eating that meat will kill you. Well, not you, but 4000 years into the future, it will kill humans like .. pigs.
And then there are the obvious beneficial laws, "one fourth of your land will remain untouched by cattle and un-planted" (sth along those lines, 1/4, 1/3.. -hitch knows-). Late 1400's, early 1500's. Immense increases in grain/food production follow agricultural developments. 'simplest' of which is a rotational system, in which cattle is used to fertilise the land, part of the land is planted, and part left untouched (or whatever, it was a 1:1 match with that little law. Europe breaks out of the Dark Ages and starts to flourish again.


(Who can name the fallacy I just committed? 10b naq and cheers to you.)

Noobert wrote:Just look at this history. Some may not believe it to be true, but I believe it is. Nobody is as good as they seem. If it's to good to be true, it bloody well is.

Some would say you're a cynic.. but if you look at your example, King David was shown to be one of us, sinners. And still, despite all that adultery, murder, vengeance, idolatry.. he returned to god when he noticed he went wrong. In the end, David could've been smitten by god at any one point in his life for being a hypocritical s.o.b. Surely if I was god, I'd have smashed him and soo many others early on.
Some people use that as an argument to point to God's forgiveness and patience. Others point at it and say god is dead.

Ah well.

Radiance wrote:

Noobert wrote:It's all in the beliefs. I believe the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'm not certain as I do not believe in God or Gods, or anything of the like simply due to the fact that if this God existed, why would he let our race destroy the planet by ravaging it like a plague of locusts?

Because he adheres to the whole "Thou shalt not kill" deal. Just waiting on him to figure out he can easily bypass that particular gem by using others to kill. Or did he figure that out already, and is religion pretty much the catalyst of the natural balance restoring itself - through mass slaughter of mankind, back to proper figures.
Is it then not our rebellion against that balancing act, that causes this planetophage behaviour?

God could just smite us. Or, he can be all cool and awesome and use aliens to rend our souls. Most of us are heathen scum anyway, so let's enjoy it while it lasts. *grin*

Noobert wrote:The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill (if I am not mistaken), and yet it's pretty much made in blood. Look at most of the references in it, and search throughout history books about people like David, Moses, Joshua, and there are others whose names elude me at this moment.

Well now, if we all understood and didn't kill, we wouldn't need a rule against killing, don't we?
The point of the stories is to show how the ungodly act of murder (not interchangeable with Gods Wrath as executed by the Kings of Israel) leads inevitably to bad things. (My point about the Wrath is, that in some cases it's God telling the people to slaughter, in which case the "Legislator" basically nullifies his Law regarding certain groups/people. It's an ultimate weapon of doom. Literally.)

By showing us how those who sin come to fall, the bible tries to tell us that we shouldn't -for example- murder. Or lie. Or something.

As for the apparently more superficial rules, like "don't eat this meat", just look at the diseases -for example- pigs spread. Pretty nice of God to tell some people that eating that meat will kill you. Well, not you, but 4000 years into the future, it will kill humans like .. pigs.
And then there are the obvious beneficial laws, "one fourth of your land will remain untouched by cattle and un-planted" (sth along those lines, 1/4, 1/3.. -hitch knows-). Late 1400's, early 1500's. Immense increases in grain/food production follow agricultural developments. 'simplest' of which is a rotational system, in which cattle is used to fertilise the land, part of the land is planted, and part left untouched (or whatever, it was a 1:1 match with that little law. Europe breaks out of the Dark Ages and starts to flourish again.


(Who can name the fallacy I just committed? 10b naq and cheers to you.)

Noobert wrote:Just look at this history. Some may not believe it to be true, but I believe it is. Nobody is as good as they seem. If it's to good to be true, it bloody well is.

Some would say you're a cynic.. but if you look at your example, King David was shown to be one of us, sinners. And still, despite all that adultery, murder, vengeance, idolatry.. he returned to god when he noticed he went wrong. In the end, David could've been smitten by god at any one point in his life for being a hypocritical s.o.b. Surely if I was god, I'd have smashed him and soo many others early on.
Some people use that as an argument to point to God's forgiveness and patience. Others point at it and say god is dead.

Ah well.

also My,Radiance friend look at this~~ saul before he became paul the apostle from the bible he kill as many christains as he could before God came to him asking why are you killing christains,afte rthat God talk to saul he became paul and he saw the hand of God and than he became Christian and started saving them,aslo noal from the ark ,or was that Moses that kill a man once and god still use them to do his will,and also Dean my sinful child and or any one else I ask you this!!!~~You know of God,and Satan of which one would you fear the most?????

0K its been a while now and i am on vac-mode and NO ONE has tryed to answer this one i had ask this if that you know of GOD and satan of which one would you fear the most I will tell you of which one you should fear the most!!And that is GOD it shows//Mat 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.If that you sin and dont repent you go to hell ,now i know your thinking this //ok if that we have a caring,and loving GOD why do he sends us to hell in fact he does not we just Volunteer? so we must fear God for he can destroy both body,and soul.

Wacky0ne wrote:0K its been a while now and i am on vac-mode and NO ONE has tryed to answer this one i had ask this if that you know of GOD and satan of which one would you fear the most I will tell you of which one you should fear the most!!And that is GOD it shows//Mat 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.If that you sin and dont repent you go to hell ,now i know your thinking this //ok if that we have a caring,and loving GOD why do he sends us to hell in fact he does not we just Volunteer? so we must fear God for he can destroy both body,and soul.

God. Simple reason, he threw Satan down there. He obviously is more powerful.

Then again, if we go with the 'stories of such', if he grows more powerful off of souls, I believe Satan would be more powerful then God simply because .. most of us are beyond sinners.

Ashu wrote:If anyone tries to prove/disprove God exists I will laugh in their face.A god that can be measured,quantified,touched,seen and heard is not a god...

tell that to a billion budhists.
or a billion hindies.
or, for that matter, to a (don't know how many and not going to lookup) christians, believing Jesus was the flesh incarnation of god.
or ancient greeks, or Egyptians.
can any one tell me why is monotheism considered enlightened and polytheism/paganism is considered primitive?
the ancient greek lay the foundation to our entire structure of reasoning/scientifical process. it was said that "all of western philosophy is but sidenotes to Plato". and Plato and his contemporaries were pagans.
never mind. i can tell you:
because history (and morals) is written by the victors. the strongest and most influencial religion today is christianity, and the education to believe in an unfathomable, omnypresent, omnypotent, omniscient god, is a way to preserve itself.


anyway, i want to put my 2 cents on the original post of this thread.
there can not be a philosophical argument neither proving nor disproving God. philosophy (in western tradition, at-least), is reasoning. it is a long chain of reasons and effects, steming from basic, defined axioms.
the "quality" of a philosophical argument can be measured by:
A) how clear cut and precise (note: precise is NOT synonimus with accurate!) the axioms are.
B) how rigidly the conclusions are derived.
an outstanding example of this will be descartes' "cogito ergu sum" (i think, therfore i am) argument, in which he rejects all of sensual input and finally arives at the conclusion that there is at-least one thing he can be certain of, and that is his own existence (well, descartes was a mathematician, and those guys are worse than lawyers when it comes to blocking any loophole).
any way, God as we understand it, is beyond reason. it transcends reason (yes, i too am a product of the judeo-christian religios education system). and just as you cannot explain the actions of a person by sheer physics (for people's actions have a purpose, and pysics only deals with reasons), you can not explain God by sheer philosophy.
you can try and prove god by certain pseudo-scientific arguments, but than again, who really wants a god who is subject to science?
and i thing douglas adams said it best:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.


one believes god, or he doesn't. i don't.

I get so very bored of this topic. You're 90% certain going to find the answer out in the next 100 years... so... in the words of Yoda and every other Jedi...

Patience.

yes but by then it may be too late to put that knowledge to use

knowledge without a use is worse than ignorance all it does is confounded and worry

God is a concept invented by man to explain all the things they could not understand. In a so called enlightened and educated age is has no use.

Religion is far more dangerous, again invented my man, possibly with good intent to start with, but mostly used to control people.

Both are outdated and irrelevant in the modern world,

Science is the new god and money is the new religion.

here's a point:
a frequent claim against god/religion is that it is an instrument used by people to put their life in order. to organise their life and prevent dillemas.
so here's my point:
i'm an atheist, a rationalist and an empiricist*, but it's not because i'm sure there is no god. hell, for what i know there very may well be one. i'm an atheist because i can't stand the idea there's some being who can change my fate at-will. in other words, i'm an atheist to put my life in order. to organise it.


* i know, theres a classic dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism, but it's really not self contradictory when you come to think of it. PM me if you want to discuss further.