Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I do not believe that God punishes anyone. I believe that we punish ourselves by rebelling against God.Free from punishment!
Most folks from most religions believe they were sent here on earth for learning experience or as a test or to recognize the Creator and be grateful to the Creator.
While all those could be true - you also have to make sure you are free from punishment when you fail.![]()
I agree.In my opinion - God knows everything. God knows what we will do or not do. So, it is pointless to send us here to see what we do!
Who are the Angels according to your religion?So, I believe - God sent us here to show the Angels what we do (with our free-will).
So, on the judgment day - if the Angels demand -the "failed ones" could be punished!![]()
That is what people need to do but it is easier said than done!Use his open-mindedness and search through all the confusions, cultural diffusions, false infusions and any possible contamination.
And then the "truth" will reveal itself!
Court judgments are not based upon eyewitnesses unless those eyewitnesses can testify in the court.You made it very clear that you only acknowledge what you can see or experience with your own eyes or what could be proven with verifiable data. You do not accept testimonies of other eyewitnesses from our time or from the past - unless those testimonies can be verified with modern tools that you currently possess.
However judgements can be made based on testimonies of witnesses. Even in our modern court systems - if 20 people say they witnessed a crime but there is no other physical evidence - would a Judge deny their testimonies and set the criminal free
You decide what is acceptable to you.![]()
I am similarly inclined. Eyewitness testimony has shown itself to be incredibly unreliable. Are you aware that when new DNA evidences proves that an incarcerated person is innocent, they were almost always convicted by eyewitness testimony.You do not accept testimonies of other eyewitnesses from our time or from the past - unless those testimonies can be verified with modern tools that you currently possess.
You should read original, and not what arm-chair atheists have propagated about it without even reading it themselves.Sorry, @Link , but I will have to disagree.
Pascal's Wager just doesn't work by any conceivable perspective. Not least because it involves presuming to fool an all-knowing entity.
You presume way too much, sorry to say.You should read original, and not what arm-chair atheists have propagated about it without even reading it themselves.
He has a whole section for not deceiving yourself and not tricking yourself of something to make you at ease with hell and paradise results. He says, a person has to make sure to be truthful about this to themselves and not deceive themselves into believing in God or religion based on the want to go to heaven and avoid hell. A whole section deals with this.You presume way too much, sorry to say.
I don't think that's what he is doing. There are genuine problems with Pascal's wager:You should read original, and not what arm-chair atheists have propagated about it without even reading it themselves.
None of these are true about the original argument.I don't think that's what he is doing. There are genuine problems with Pascal's wager:
- It assumes there is only one god and one right religion.
- Believing out of self-interest rather than genuine conviction lacks moral integrity.
- It bypasses the need for evidence in belief systems.
There is only one version of Pascal's wager. Either it is valid, or it has inherent problems.None of these are true about the original argument.
Yes and you are only parroting false things about it.There is only one version of Pascal's wager. Either it is valid, or it has inherent problems.
That may well be.He has a whole section for not deceiving yourself and not tricking yourself of something to make you at ease with hell and paradise results. He says, a person has to make sure to be truthful about this to themselves and not deceive themselves into believing in God or religion based on the want to go to heaven and avoid hell. A whole section deals with this.
I would argue that an atheist who is good, kind, and moral is far far closer to God than someone who says, "I believe in God" and then turns around and abuses others.Believing in God is where Faith works in us. When our Faith is true to God we have a close connection to God. Our Faith gives us the power to believe in what we cannot see. Without Faith one cannot please God. Hebrews 11:6
Atheist means that you do not believe in God. You can be good kind person, but if you do not believe in God, then God does not know you. That is where Faith works. One has to have Faith in God. without Faith one cannot please God. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is real, and that he rewards them that seek him.I would argue that an atheist who is good, kind, and moral is far far closer to God than someone who says, "I believe in God" and then turns around and abuses others.
An atheist does not know God, but I believe that God knows everyone, whether they are a believer or an atheist.Atheist means that you do not believe in God. You can be good kind person, but if you do not believe in God, then God does not know you.
Yes, I agree with all of what you said above. Without Faith it is impossible to please God, and that is why God does not offer the kind of proof that atheists want, because if God did that there would be no need for Faith.That is where Faith works. One has to have Faith in God. without Faith one cannot please God. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is real, and that he rewards them that seek him.
No. There is no reasonable evidence that god exists.Since the question has been posed to theists, I figured another thread for everyone else might be illuminating.
So... what do you think, atheists? Does God exist?
F1fan said:I am a believer, let me say that G-d exists and we exist only because He exists.
May I ask one; Do you exist, please, right?
McBell :One means communication/Converse between two persons is acknowledgement/proof of the persons existence, right, please??
McBell :Founders of all great religions were in communication/Converse of G-d (and also many of their followers), so why reject them and existence of G-d, please, right?
" asking me questions "
One means communication/Converse between two persons is acknowledgement/proof of the persons existence, right, please??
paarsurrey said:
And one's claim is no different , I might have not communicated with one at all, instead of one I might have communicated with some robot or AI, please, right?
So, no certainty of one's existence in that case, right, please?
Regards
So our @McBell , (an Atheist) doesn't exist, right, please?
Kindly elaborate use of "them" in one's #436 as to what persons are included in it, please.no idea how you got the exact opposite from what was said,
What is reasonable evidence is a subjective determination so ....No. There is no reasonable evidence that god exists.
God knows everyone.Atheist means that you do not believe in God. You can be good kind person, but if you do not believe in God, then God does not know you.