"Proving that one thing exists then expecting another thing to exist because it shares traits with the first, or has been redefined to be the same, doesn't prove that second thing to exist."
Oh wait, I see the flaw in this argument... I never did prove that the universe exists. kthx brb.
"You're not proving god's existence, you're just describing the universe and then tacking "god" onto it."
I was merely proposing a different perspective by comparing the supposed characteristics of God with the only thing that we can attribute these characteristics to, the realm in which things exist.
My argument was more like "God == X, Y, Z == Existence"
"You start by defining god, and then proving that it exists. You don't describe something else in terms you associate with god and expect that something to become god."
The Bible is a book written in only so many words. It cannot or may not have been designed to explain to it's readers in great scientific detail, what God is. The point of the Bible is not to probe God. God isn't something to be poked at with a stick and measured. If you don't believe, which is all it takes, then ignore it. No one is forcing you to change, in fact, if there is a God it is allowing you to live your life the way you see it.
"Yet there is still suffering."
I think good and bad are on the same scale, and that is the scale of quality. If good can exist, which I think it does, so will bad. You pay for your good with bad, and visa versa. So, yes. There is still suffering. I was saying that if we exist, God allows you to suffer and endures it with you, because it's important to know suffering to know virtue.
Interesting. I have some questions though.
According to the Bible, can one have faith in God but not man, and be right in the eyes of God?
Assuming you have faith in God, you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins... and you love all people, wicked or not, as family. The only difference is you do not seek instruction or help from other people because they can or maybe corrupt in their understandings.
I love rain.
I live in a place where in summer there are no clouds in the sky, only dirt, and the temperature reaches over 110F during the summer. So, personally, I love the rain. Fresh smelling, crisp, cool air, water, what is there not to love?
Ask me in a year though, I'm moving to Portland Oregon in a month... my opinion may change, but I doubt it.
This is what I'm saying. The only possible outcomes to this question are...
A) The operation is invalid
B) The second of two operands are invalid
C) The only valid operand is the difference of no operand
So, it's either the question if flawed and cannot give a positive answer (unless you can have to valid operands), the second operand is invalid, meaning the operation is invalid (as already stated), or the only difference found in the operation is the difference of X and nothing... which is X.
Again, my point is that you cannot distinguish because the operands are incompatible, the operation on the operands is incompatible, and even if you were to carry out the operation, or force it (which invalidates the results) you get only "natural disaster" by itself. You cannot distinguish the difference between the two.
To make the the operation valid you assume God. Once you do this though you should get the same result as before, "NO". X and Y in this case are equal and so there is no difference assuming Y is valid. An act of nature is an act of god, or an act of god through nature is still an act of nature, through god.
Unless you are so delusional that you believe there is some way to actually distinguish without a doubt, the difference, you will always get "NO". Like, if you believe right before a natural disaster, god comes down from where ever, as a unnatural thing, and says "I AM GOD AND I WILL PERSONALLY MAKE A DISASTER HERE THAT MAY LOOK LIKE A NATURAL DISASTER, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE I AM CAUSING THE DISASTER AND I AM UNNATURAL AND SO IT THE NATURAL THAT I'M ABOUT TO USE AGAINST THINGS, IT WILL ALSO BE UNNATURAL TEMPORARILY!!! HAHAHAHAH". That's the only way you could get a "YES" from this question.
HAHAHAAA
That's what I explained to him(her?)... anyone who stays @ #1 for a that long will be attacked... just like Kukla and yourself...
I guess if you're with your kids all the time and still posting to CD it's possible to have a life and be #1.
Maybe it's just that CD is incredibly slow?
I've been here too much in the past week or so, I think I need to get a life.
Terminator though is here when I'm not, and he's here when I am... so he definitely needs to get a life.
AND the leaderboard shows it. Whoever is on that leaderboard needs to get a life IMO. It doesn't really mean anything except that you're here all the time saying more shit than anyone else, constantly, for at least a week.
Terminator is #1 on that list haha, above Joe!
"The nature of God, according to myself, is to not exist. For to create existance, one must first not exist to out rule contradiction. This is to say that God is actually the manifestation of existence from nonexistence. And to define nonexistence, one would say it is without or beyond the limits of space or time. Is that not God?"
I think you're on the right track here, but God doesn't have to either exist of not exist. The definition of exist is to be. Can something be that isn't in space time and that isn't measurable in any way? I don't know.
"The existence of a god is an unfounded and undesireable belief. Religion has hitherto brought forth war and greed. We are better off without a god. Further, a god should not be your means of a moral compass, your own mind should be fully capable of discerning right from wrong."
Now this is what I don't understand. The existence of God is unfounded and undesirable. The existence of god assumes God actually exists, in which case you wouldn't have a say in how it's founded or how desirable a truth it is. You mean to say "the believe in the existence of God".
Religion has brought about a lot of wicked things because it is a human construct. Even Jesus said that the churches of his time were corrupt and be proclaimed to be the son of God. So, the belief in God didn't directly cause said trouble. It was the religious organizations that founded themselves on the belief in God. To say that we are better off not believing in God because of what religion has done, is to say that we're better off without cars because of NASCAR accidents.
The Bible states that man is flawed, corrupt and imperfect. It would be best to stick with the word of the Bible as your moral compass but most importantly make your own decisions. Don't have people telling you what to believe because you don't really learn the value of right judgement. You don't know why right is right and wrong is wrong. You won't know good from bad and bad from good. You won't know God and God won't know you.
So in a sense I think you're right on, you say last that we are all fully capable of making right decisions, and I believe this too. Religious organizations are convincing people that we need help to serve God when this just isn't true.
