• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is God's existence necessary?

Is God's existence necessary?

  • Total voters
    73
J

Janardena

Member
prometheus11 said:
I'm not being defensive; I'm being descriptive.

Your entire message is that you know someone has opposite beliefs than what they state. Your calling them a liar and claiming to know what's inside another psychology.

Poor show. You should be ashamed of that behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling him a liar.

What is his or your justification for not believing in God?
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Janardena said:
Are these brain chemicals love?
If not. What is love?
Click to expand...
The definition of love is: "a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
Are you sure that is what Love is?
Have you experienced that process,
Click to expand...
Yes.
or are you accepting it on faith?
Click to expand...
I accept it because of all the available evidence.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993160,00.html
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Janardena said:
How do you KNOW?
Please answer the question.
Click to expand...
How do i know what?

I know that belief is not knowing.
You are merely hoping you are right.

A guess is a guess, it is not knowing.
And it matters not how much you believe it, it is still a guess.
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Janardena said:
I'm not calling him a liar.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. You are declaring that he is the opposite of what he claims. If I said that you are really a space alien instead of a human (as you have claimed you are), then I'm calling you a liar.


What is his or your justification for not believing in God?
Click to expand...

The same justification for not believing that dogs change into unicorns when nobody's watching.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Janardena said:
I'm not calling him a liar.

What is his or your justification for not believing in God?
Click to expand...
My justification for not believing in the existence of the Christian God, Allah, Brahma, Poseidon, Thor, Zeus or any other god is that there's no convincing evidence that any of them exist.
 
J

Janardena

Member
Mestemia said:
How do i know what?

I know that belief is not knowing.
You are merely hoping you are right.

A guess is a guess, it is not knowing.
And it matters not how much you believe it, it is still a guess.
Click to expand...

You said: Now I understand that there are people who have to shove their god anywhere and everywhere they can, but "GodDidIt" is not an honest answer.

How do you know that GodDidIt is not an honest answer?
 
Forgemaster

Forgemaster

Heretic
Janardena said:
what is his or your justification for not believing in God?
Click to expand...

I do not believe in your God because he does not keep is promises, and for a religion that worships a "perfect" God it sure does change a lot. And I don't blame atheists for their beliefs because they are right, there's no evidence, I have my beliefs for my own reasons, I just figure: Hey! What's there to lose? And I felt a calling to my gods so I have no need to believe in your God.
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Janardena said:
You said: Now I understand that there are people who have to shove their god anywhere and everywhere they can, but "GodDidIt" is not an honest answer.

How do you know that GodDidIt is not an honest answer?
Click to expand...

The difference between knowledge and belief, perhaps?
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Reflex said:
Modern atheism reckons itself to be synonymous with skepticism mainly due to the grossly mistaken assumption that it makes no positive claim for itself, but rather simply rejects a single positive claim; i.e. the claim “God is.” So this type of “prove it” argument is valid only if the notion of God were not a hypothesis at all. God is and has always been an explanatory hypothesis for the existence of the visible universe and everything in it. In other words, it is not enough to simply say “It was not God” in response to the question “Where did everything come from?” Nor is it enough to say "prove it" or to simply hide behind the words “I do not know.” The atheist must substitute another hypothesis in God’s place in order to justify his rejection of God, and furthermore he must provide evidence for that hypothesis. Until that event comes to pass, the theist remains justified in his belief, albeit an uncertain belief. Until someone can provide a satisfactory hypothesis for the universe, God, properly described, remains the most viable alternative.
Click to expand...

Any made up hypothesis, properly described, is the most viable alternative to what we do not know, yet. Zeus, properly described, was the most viable alternative to explain lightnings, for instance.

So, do you think that believes in Zeus and Thor were logically justified in their belief, since it was the only game in town when it came to explain thunderstorms?

If yes, how does it feel to potentially be in the same league?

Ciao

- viole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top