A qn from an atheist

IvanSong SG

TS, you're asking if god exists or has a beginning (stg like that). I assume u mean the God of Protestant Christians, of which i count myself as. Trinitarian, omniscient, omnipotent, and can only be known thru Jesus Christ. Not thru ourselves, or can be "found" everywhere - that would be new ageism and animism.

I'm not a religious scholar or theology student, but these are just somethings that interest me and have made me evaluate my faith. I believe that Christianity as a belief system can withstand the most intellectually rigorous examination. Of course, i'm just an acolyte in this area, and i dare not say i know much. But if you put God in the centre of everything, i believe it will be a good fit.

God cannot be created nor destroyed. Then we might as well worship the one who created God, and find another name for it. But your point being? As i've said, God is uncaused. He is sufficient in and of Himself.

stupidissmart SG

The atheist as well as the believer are both making a claim from their respective stance, hence both have the burden of proof upon themselves, not just the believer. The believer says that God exists, the atheist says that he does not. Both are effectively making a claim.

There is a difference between the two. Christian claim there is a god. It is not something tat can be seen or observed from a general point of view. It is something out of the ordinary. U cannot say tat non believer also made a claim in tis case. It is because they did not assert a fact which is not observed, unlike the christian. Just remember the unicorn example. I claim something out of the ordinary and have to prove it. The others r not claiming anything which is out of the norm.

I cannot disprove the existence of an invisible unicorn (or etc) in your mind, but bear in mind that there are people who have illusions of such and more, and we normally put them in asylums.

To be frank a lot of people who claim they see god or god talking to them r in asylums too

Have you ever seen evolution happening? Or is it deduced? Have you ever seen the Big Bang or is it just the result of immense calculation or computer modeling? My point is that science itself cannot adequately explain or conclusively affirm a certain fact. What is scientifically proven one day, can be disproved the very next, and we've seen many examples of that. In my memory, the Piltdown Hoax is one

Evolution is a fact. It leaves tons of evidences tat points to it being true. Not only tat NO evidence ever point evolution to be wrong. Big bang is also believed to be true because there r many evidences tat points to its existence. It is not as virgourous as evolution though and it can be proven to be wrong, or in another form.

U can say tat science has proven one day being proven to be wrong the next but take note most of them have not reached maturity as well as scientific fact tat has not been conclusive. The more established scientific theories and laws which had undergone many scrutinies over time r seldom shown to be wrong.

The piltdown hoax is proven to be wrong by science itself because it is naturally able to weed out lies and hoax. If someone sometime add a line into the bible on its own, can it be detected ? Nope. Rolling Eyes

It is true that there are many religions in the world, due to man's wilful interpretations and creativity? But as far as i know, only ONE has said that He is God, and He is the only way to God and eternal life. That of Jesus Christ. No other major religion has made that claim.

How do u know your religion is not due to man wilful interpretation and creativity ? The bible claims and u simply believe ? According to icemoon islam claim jesus is just a prophet. Since it made such a claim then it is true ? Buddhist also claims deities and god belong to just a realm, and it is not the highest realm. Then just because it made tat claim then it is true ?

I think believing just because it claims boastfully is not a strong point for believing in it

About the reason for existence part, i'm not really understanding u. Say i push all the qns up one level then. So the universe came to exist by itself? But God is still another level higher. Which definition is greater? The universe or God? I did give a criteria for His existence, which was Himself. The uncaused cause.

U see, if the universe can exist by itself, why is there a need to force god into the picture ? No god is needed then and there is no level higher.

If u wanna give a criteria for god, I can also give a criteria for universe which is the "uncaused cause". If u believe everything have to be "caused", then tat everything have to include god too. If u believe tat something can be "uncaused" then tat thing can very well be the universe.

Then everything remains unanswered. Wat is the difference when u say "god is the uncaused cause" from saying "god way is higher than men and we do not knew"

caleb_chiang SG

or... like this... God was created by a being called God which in turn was created by another being called God and so on and so fore.... They are in term called God. Laughing

jondizzle foshizzle SG

Ok I’m not saying the Big Bang didn’t happen but tell me where did the Big Bang come from?

stupidissmart SG

maybe the answer is the same as where did god come from Rolling Eyes

jondizzle foshizzle SG

exactly my point. u say theres no proof as to where god came from so im asking u the same thing, where did the big bang come from?

stupidissmart SG

U see, u r asking an unfair question. If I answer u the answer to where the big bang come from, lets say the "small squash", u will then ask where did the "small squash" come from. If I answer where does the "small squash" come from, u will ask where did tat phenomenon comes from again.

There is no ending to it. But for your answer, u just put a big black hole "god" into the picture and suck in all the questions and give out no answers. U just ignore the fact tat in the end, something have to be out from nothing

If everything need to be created, then god have to be created too. How is god created ? If there is something tat do not need to be created, (lets say god) then let tat something can be something simpler like the "big bang".

noahnoah SG

of course it is hard to believe there is a God to many

ppl one

why

Reason is simple

because one will not say got ghost until he see one

so same lor

if one never get to see God

of course said there is no God exist at all

but if one get to see God , might be too late liao

at times i also try not to believe there is a God exist at all

but i just cant

stupidissmart SG

if one never get to see God

of course said there is no God exist at all

but if one get to see God , might be too late liao

Yah lor

But there r few hundred different variety of god. So we got to believe all of them otherwise when we see them it is too late ?

SturmDerSchatten SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
If someone sometime add a line into the bible on its own, can it be detected ? Nope.

Of course it can. What do you think the many religious scholars are here for? What is the purpose of the True Church then, if not to protect the faith from people who wish to change the Bible or create their own cults and call them Christianity?

jondizzle foshizzle SG

Ah but why must u seperate science from religion? Let's say I take a pregnant monkey, wait for it to give birth and then kill the mother and put the babies in a room which is similar to its natural habitat.

So the monkeys start to form a community and grow up, all of which have no idea of the existence of anything outside the room. But then they start to find that the trees and plantlife planted in the room have traces that they weren't there to begin with i.e. the gardening tools. So the monkeys (pretty smart monkeys I guess) conclude that their universe (the room) was created by the synergy and coming-together of gardening tools.

All evidence supports their theory because it is true that I did use the gardening tools to create their universe but they still have no way to prove my existence. So technically, because I created their universe I am their 'god'. Some monkeys start to believe in a creator (me) even though they have no evidence of my existence and there's no way they'll find evidence of me because I'm not part of their universe (their room).

Although they might advance in technology by creating crude tools they will never be smart enough to comprehend my existence because they're monkeys.

See a similarity? When you say where the Big Bang came from I could just ask where did that come from and it'll keep repeating until you get to the last thing which is the thing that has always been there and has no beginning. That entity is God. And perhaps God created the chain of events called the Big Bang, maybe he didn't, who's to say?

Science doesn't go against religion, it merely proves how the world works. If we were smart enough we'd be able to prove the existence of a God with science somehow but the thing is, we aren't. We're like the monkeys. Us trying to comprehend the existence of God is like a monkey trying to comprehend how the stock market works. We don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.

stupidissmart SG

Wat is the mechanism which it works ? They just study the bible faithfully and assuming every line to be true isn't it ? The bible is only as true as the stand of the committee meeting in the past during the compiling of the bible and the numerous interpretationsfrom one language to another.

SturmDerSchatten SG

The number 0 in mathematics has a similar case. How did the concept of zero meaning nothingness come about? You could have as many circular arguments as you want, but you still can't truly explain how nothingness came about. We therefore say zero is an axiom.

Similarly, God to the Christians is an axiom. There is no real need to explain why He came about, neither is there a pressing concern to describe how He came about. He just is, like nothing is nothing. Besides, asking the question "Who created God?" is irrelevant, because it implies a sense of time; that something had to come before God. That argument in itself is flawed, because if time had not been created then, how can something be said to be before God and create Him? We're talking about the beginning of time, remember?

noahnoah SG

Science will never be able to prove

that God exists at all

Even they can shoot a rocket high in the space

and go round and round the space

they still cant find God one

Because God live in a realm tat no one can find de

Laughing

Chrisitan believe in God

not because they saw God

but because they experience

his power , greatness and Love

Ok done

Feel free to Fire me with negative remarks

stupidissmart SG

Although they might advance in technology by creating crude tools they will never be smart enough to comprehend my existence because they're monkeys

U r not wrong, tat is a possible scenario. However it is all your assumption. Wat is the problem with assumption ? Everything can be wrong. And because of tat, it is not science nor fact, and shouldn't be believed.

I can also come out with another scenario as well. God is the monkey and he is created by another god who hides behind and leaving no trace to tis god. Tis god thought he is created out of nothing and he further create human etc. But in fact he is just another being in another realm formed by a greater being

SturmDerSchatten SG

I can assure you Biblical definitions do not change overnight, unless you're talking about those fundamentalists we're all so very sick of (I'm especially impatient with them).

The Bible in itself is a guide as to how to read it. As 1 Thessalonians Chapter 5 Verses 21 and 22 say, "Test everything; retain what is good.Refrain from every kind of evil."

I do not deny the possibility of inaccuracy of the translation of the Bible from its original scripture to today's languages, but you place too much importance on that. Most of the translational inaccuracies are very minor ones; perhaps one of the more major ones is the correction of "Thou shalt not kill." to "Thou shalt not murder." Moreover, one must look at the context and time period it was written.

stupidissmart SG

Similarly, God to the Christians is an axiom. There is no real need to explain why He came about, neither is there a pressing concern to describe how He came about. He just is, like nothing is nothing. Besides, asking the question "Who created God?" is irrelevant, because it implies a sense of time; that something had to come before God. That argument in itself is flawed, because if time had not been created then, how can something be said to be before God and create Him? We're talking about the beginning of time, remember?

In the end, u just go one round and claim again tat god do not need to be created while the other things have to be. As said, if tat is the case then the universe do no need to be created, tat it is timeless and start with the beginning of time. U just need to attach all the unfavourable condition u set for god to be set on the universe as well. Then there is no need for god in tis model as well. If god cannot be created and tis question is meaningless, then universe is not created and tis question is equally meaningless.

stupidissmart SG

In tat case then unlike science, there is no mechanism to see if the bible can be wrong. U r already assuming the bible to be 100% correct. How do u come out with tis conclusion ?

SturmDerSchatten SG

Well, if that's your way of seeing it, I've no problem with it. It's not like we're two mortal enemies battling over the fate of the universe anyway. Razz

stupidissmart SG

Well, if that's your way of seeing it, I've no problem with it. It's not like we're two mortal enemies battling over the fate of the universe anyway

True. It is just tat u believe in assumptions while I am critical about assumptions. I believe in evidence

« Previous Page Next Page »