The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Cappster wrote:Logic, reasoning, and arguments are good for debating theories about the existence of something. The key word is theory as in the theoretical existence of God not that God, without a doubt, exists which would be a Law.

Empirical data cannot establish laws; data can only falsify (or fail to falsify) theories. The known laws of the universe are theories, insofar as we articulate them.

Going back to my original argument...God could end all of the speculation if he truly wanted to, but why doesn't he? He either likes effing with us or he doesn't exist.

You are leaving out more than a few middle options here. For example, what if God exists but doesn't spend his time worrying about how you perceive his involvement or lack thereof in the universe? Why should human beings assume that if God exists he should be doing something special to prove that existence to us, especially the skeptical among us?

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:I am Atheist #truestory

How do you explain everything that is? #truequestion

I don't have to explain anything

Well, not if you have no intellectual curiosity.

Intellectual curiosity?

I think blindly following stories in the greatest fictional novel ever written is not exactly intelligent.

Note: The bible is the most shoplifted book of all time.

Who said anything about the Bible? I'm talking about the existence of God. The greatest scientists the world has ever known have almost all, uniformly, believed in the existence of God. I was just wondering how an atheist believes everything was created, if not by a supreme being.

The same way as it would of been with a supreme being. Do you really think god just said let there be light and there was?

Yes. Some people call that event the Big Bang.

Except that *something* existed before the big bang, whereas supposedly nothing existed before god said it was so...

Really? "And the earth was void and without form." Could that describe that *something*?

No and just so you know I'm not an Atheist.

Never said you were, nor had I formed an opinion as to your beliefs. I'd like more than just a "no" as an answer to my question though. Why does "void and without form" not acurately describe the singularity that was the pre-big bang universe?

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

ATX_Skins wrote:I am Atheist #truestory

How do you explain everything that is? #truequestion

I don't have to explain anything

Well, not if you have no intellectual curiosity.

Intellectual curiosity?

I think blindly following stories in the greatest fictional novel ever written is not exactly intelligent.

Note: The bible is the most shoplifted book of all time.

Who said anything about the Bible? I'm talking about the existence of God. The greatest scientists the world has ever known have almost all, uniformly, believed in the existence of God. I was just wondering how an atheist believes everything was created, if not by a supreme being.

The same way as it would of been with a supreme being. Do you really think god just said let there be light and there was?

Yes. Some people call that event the Big Bang.

Except that *something* existed before the big bang, whereas supposedly nothing existed before god said it was so...

Really? "And the earth was void and without form." Could that describe that *something*?

No and just so you know I'm not an Atheist.

Never said you were, nor had I formed an opinion as to your beliefs. I'd like more than just a "no" as an answer to my question though. Why does "void and without form" not acurately describe the singularity that was the pre-big bang universe?

All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really...... Well thats the way I've always took it

Man, you guys have to learn how to snip old quotes from your posts.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

As an analogy, my answer would be a 5 year old who asks why her teacher let them spill their juice after the teacher told them 5 times to stop what they were doing, they were going to spill their juice. To the kid, the juice is everything. To the teacher, it's not that simple.

*good answer my friend*

So why give us the freedom of making our own decisions.. and HE supposedly knows what will happen anyways? Seems like a mean thing to do huh?

Irn-Bru wrote:

Cappster wrote:Logic, reasoning, and arguments are good for debating theories about the existence of something. The key word is theory as in the theoretical existence of God not that God, without a doubt, exists which would be a Law.

Empirical data cannot establish laws; data can only falsify (or fail to falsify) theories. The known laws of the universe are theories, insofar as we articulate them.

Going back to my original argument...God could end all of the speculation if he truly wanted to, but why doesn't he? He either likes effing with us or he doesn't exist.

You are leaving out more than a few middle options here. For example, what if God exists but doesn't spend his time worrying about how you perceive his involvement or lack thereof in the universe? Why should human beings assume that if God exists he should be doing something special to prove that existence to us, especially the skeptical among us?

Then we should be talking about God as a theoretical being, but some claim the deity to be undeniably real.

If God puts so much emphasis on the human race such as condemning us to hell for not worshiping him, he owes us the common courtesy of undoubtedly proving to us his existence. If we are such a tiny spec of the universe then why would he even care anyway what we think? I want someone/something who claims to be my supreme ruler to remove any doubt that he/it is what they claim to be. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

As an analogy, my answer would be a 5 year old who asks why her teacher let them spill their juice after the teacher told them 5 times to stop what they were doing, they were going to spill their juice. To the kid, the juice is everything. To the teacher, it's not that simple.

*good answer my friend*

So why give us the freedom of making our own decisions.. and HE supposedly knows what will happen anyways? Seems like a mean thing to do huh?

I would argue using my example that the teacher:

1) In the short run knows that "if" the kid doesn't listen to her "then" the kid is likely to spill his juice based on experience, but it might or might not happen.

2) The teacher wants the kid to listen to her and stop on his own rather then forcing him to follow her advice.

3) The teacher is thinking of next time and the lesson, not just this time.

I have always doubted the idea that God knows everything with 100% certainty of what will happen, I don't see the point.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

As an analogy, my answer would be a 5 year old who asks why her teacher let them spill their juice after the teacher told them 5 times to stop what they were doing, they were going to spill their juice. To the kid, the juice is everything. To the teacher, it's not that simple.

*good answer my friend*

So why give us the freedom of making our own decisions.. and HE supposedly knows what will happen anyways? Seems like a mean thing to do huh?

And that is why I say that if there is a God, he is effing with us. The analogy is weak for the fact that God is supposed to be all powerful and can do anything. To that I say God should ensure that children go unharmed and are well fed. Would you not feed your child if you had the power to do so? And the excuse that "God's ways are higher than ours" is a cop out for anyone who chooses to invoke that saying.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

As an analogy, my answer would be a 5 year old who asks why her teacher let them spill their juice after the teacher told them 5 times to stop what they were doing, they were going to spill their juice. To the kid, the juice is everything. To the teacher, it's not that simple.

*good answer my friend*

So why give us the freedom of making our own decisions.. and HE supposedly knows what will happen anyways? Seems like a mean thing to do huh?

I would argue using my example that the teacher:

1) In the short run knows that "if" the kid doesn't listen to her "then" the kid is likely to spill his juice based on experience, but it might or might not happen.

2) The teacher wants the kid to listen to her and stop on his own rather then forcing him to follow her advice.

3) The teacher is thinking of next time and the lesson, not just this time.

I have always doubted the idea that God knows everything with 100% certainty of what will happen, I don't see the point.

All he has to do is take away our devious intentions and leave us with righteous thoughts and actions. Isn't that what heaven is going to be like? No murders, kids starving, etc...? Why not just do it now to benefit everyone?

Removing the sinister intentions solves the problem. Remove man's greed, warmongering, murderous, and devious ways. Problem solved. We still have free will to choose from the rest of the choices we can make.

Cappster wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

Cappster wrote:Logic, reasoning, and arguments are good for debating theories about the existence of something. The key word is theory as in the theoretical existence of God not that God, without a doubt, exists which would be a Law.

Empirical data cannot establish laws; data can only falsify (or fail to falsify) theories. The known laws of the universe are theories, insofar as we articulate them.

Going back to my original argument...God could end all of the speculation if he truly wanted to, but why doesn't he? He either likes effing with us or he doesn't exist.

You are leaving out more than a few middle options here. For example, what if God exists but doesn't spend his time worrying about how you perceive his involvement or lack thereof in the universe? Why should human beings assume that if God exists he should be doing something special to prove that existence to us, especially the skeptical among us?

Then we should be talking about God as a theoretical being, but some claim the deity to be undeniably real.

If by "theoretical" you mean "hypothetical," then I disagree. Suppose for a minute that God does exist: then regardless of whatever you or I may think of him, one thing that's certain is that he's "undeniably real." And it's conceivable that we could talk about God on those terms.

If God puts so much emphasis on the human race such as condemning us to hell for not worshiping him, he owes us the common courtesy of undoubtedly proving to us his existence. If we are such a tiny spec of the universe then why would he even care anyway what we think? I want someone/something who claims to be my supreme ruler to remove any doubt that he/it is what they claim to be. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Who are you talking to? Me? God?

I'm not sure whether you intended this to be a response to what I said. Here's why I think it isn't one. You said: "[God] either likes effing with us or he doesn't exist." I pointed out that these aren't the only options.

Now you are launching into some bit about hell and worship. But let's suppose that Christianity is all BS. God could still exist. For example, maybe another religion is right about him, or none of them are but yet he still exists. So that digression really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Cappster wrote:God is supposed to be all powerful and can do anything

We're discussing how we know there is a "God," so why does everyone arguing for God is burdened with your preconceptions of what believing in God means?

Irn-Bru wrote:Now you are launching into some bit about hell and worship. But let's suppose that Christianity is all BS. God could still exist. For example, maybe another religion is right about him, or none of them are but yet he still exists. So that digression really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

You're missing an option, that "all" the religions are about him. Sticking with my kindergarten example, would you teach a kindergarten class in the US and India the same way?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Now you are launching into some bit about hell and worship. But let's suppose that Christianity is all BS. God could still exist. For example, maybe another religion is right about him, or none of them are but yet he still exists. So that digression really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

You're missing an option, that "all" the religions are about him.

Sure, that's another option. But the possibilities for how a God might be interacting with human beings basically doesn't have a bearing on the question of whether there is a God, is my point.

Obviously if we can know that God is doing X, Y, or Z, then there is a God. But putting aside the question of religion and how human beings relate to God, I think we can also just talk about the question of God's existence itself. Make sense?

This discussion is super going in circles. We had a version of the same argument in this same thread like a year ago. I believe I posted a reductionist "proof" against god posed by Epicurus some 2500 years ago (hey, that's almost as old as some people think the bible says the earth is!) that touched on some of the same arguments against omnipotence.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Now you are launching into some bit about hell and worship. But let's suppose that Christianity is all BS. God could still exist. For example, maybe another religion is right about him, or none of them are but yet he still exists. So that digression really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

You're missing an option, that "all" the religions are about him.

Sure, that's another option. But the possibilities for how a God might be interacting with human beings basically doesn't have a bearing on the question of whether there is a God, is my point.

Obviously if we can know that God is doing X, Y, or Z, then there is a God. But putting aside the question of religion and how human beings relate to God, I think we can also just talk about the question of God's existence itself. Make sense?

Yes. I didn't think you'd find my point objectionable anyway.

I find inconceivable the idea that God would tell us how to communicate with him rather than his figuring out how to communicate most effectively with us. If you are the kindergarten teacher example, the goals of teaching in America and India would be the same, but the methods would be different. The goals would be based on your higher knowledge of education and child development, but your methods would be to most effectively reach the kids most effectively regarding their capability to understand, which includes their language and culture.

You can make the judgment that spilling juice is a lesson opportunity, but touching a hot stove is non-negotiable. They can't make that call. And that changes as kids age. In ancient times, pork was full of disease, but God explaining germs would have been lost, so saying it's "not clean" and it's forbidden was logical. Today, pork is no more dangerous than other meats. Just like when kids are older, the stove is not a "no" subject.

Another way to look at it rather than the kindergarten teacher would be that if you go back before people traveled and asked farmers in Italy, France and Germany to describe the Alps, you would get different answers. Sure, there would be similarity, but it wouldn't be the same. Same mountains, different vantage point.

I personally believe God exists and is personal to me because all of my experiences tell me so. I also believe God is good because he gives me the ability to be happy if I make the right choices. Only a good God would do that. Other then that, I don't worry about what the Alps look like to someone viewing them from a different angle.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Cappster wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

Cappster wrote:Logic, reasoning, and arguments are good for debating theories about the existence of something. The key word is theory as in the theoretical existence of God not that God, without a doubt, exists which would be a Law.

Empirical data cannot establish laws; data can only falsify (or fail to falsify) theories. The known laws of the universe are theories, insofar as we articulate them.

Going back to my original argument...God could end all of the speculation if he truly wanted to, but why doesn't he? He either likes effing with us or he doesn't exist.

You are leaving out more than a few middle options here. For example, what if God exists but doesn't spend his time worrying about how you perceive his involvement or lack thereof in the universe? Why should human beings assume that if God exists he should be doing something special to prove that existence to us, especially the skeptical among us?

Then we should be talking about God as a theoretical being, but some claim the deity to be undeniably real.

If by "theoretical" you mean "hypothetical," then I disagree. Suppose for a minute that God does exist: then regardless of whatever you or I may think of him, one thing that's certain is that he's "undeniably real." And it's conceivable that we could talk about God on those terms.

If God puts so much emphasis on the human race such as condemning us to hell for not worshiping him, he owes us the common courtesy of undoubtedly proving to us his existence. If we are such a tiny spec of the universe then why would he even care anyway what we think? I want someone/something who claims to be my supreme ruler to remove any doubt that he/it is what they claim to be. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Who are you talking to? Me? God?

I'm not sure whether you intended this to be a response to what I said. Here's why I think it isn't one. You said: "[God] either likes effing with us or he doesn't exist." I pointed out that these aren't the only options.

Now you are launching into some bit about hell and worship. But let's suppose that Christianity is all BS. God could still exist. For example, maybe another religion is right about him, or none of them are but yet he still exists. So that digression really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

Cappster wrote:If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

Once again you undercut your own credibility. You're asking the people who believe in God to justify ... your ... views. You don't need God, you don't need us to explain God to you, you're explaining God to us. You don't need anyone else in the thread at all.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

As an analogy, my answer would be a 5 year old who asks why her teacher let them spill their juice after the teacher told them 5 times to stop what they were doing, they were going to spill their juice. To the kid, the juice is everything. To the teacher, it's not that simple.

*good answer my friend*

So why give us the freedom of making our own decisions.. and HE supposedly knows what will happen anyways? Seems like a mean thing to do huh?

On top of the why let bad things happen argument- which is easily answered god gave man freedom of choice.

- I challenge why do select few "see" god or heaven or Jesus? Why not me? I'm a good man, and if there is a god I acknowledge he gave me the brain to question and need evidence- maybe science is a form of his blessings.. so me a thinking man questiong all "words" written or said... Would perceive myself to be smart enough to question all prophets and determine what are false idols.
Now any grown man can read the bible, "king James the whatever's VERSION" as written by man. What men? Charles Manson types? Hail bop goons?
Why am I not blessed enough to see or hear the word from the true creator?
My logical explanation is that he or she or it does not give an ish about us (with all the other galaxies going on) and that not all u *read is true.
*see Walt Disney

Cappster wrote:If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

What if God exists but doesn't spend his time worrying about how you perceive his involvement or lack thereof in the universe? What if he doesn't care that some humans are involved in silly, mistaken religions?

Why should human beings assume that if God exists he should be doing something special to prove that existence to us, especially to the skeptical? That's not a good reason to think God doesn't exist.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Cappster wrote:If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

Once again you undercut your own credibility. You're asking the people who believe in God to justify ... your ... views. You don't need God, you don't need us to explain God to you, you're explaining God to us. You don't need anyone else in the thread at all.

You are trying to spin things here, Kaz. Not a surprise, but a spin nonetheless. If everyone kept God to themselves the world would be a better place, but no, we have people out their trying to stuff their "God" agenda's down everyone's throats. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want and more power to them. If God is so obvious then it should be easy to point out the existence of said God. I am just trying to find out how people think they know this God figure. I am choosing the red pill (Matrix reference) if the pill does anything at all. I have yet to feel its effects.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Now any grown man can read the bible, "king James the whatever's VERSION" as written by man. What men? Charles Manson types? Hail bop goons?

I don't know if you get National Geographic or not (it's a great magazine, BTW, and I highly recommend it), but last December's issue featured an article about the King James Bible. It is a very scholarly researched book. I really had no idea just how much so until I read that article.

Red_One43 wrote:I have learned that to study a religion, one would be best served to study the core beliefs from the founder of the religion - not what evolved from the founder's original teachings. What did Jesus say? The Buddha? Mohammed? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? A little bit of historical background information would help too. Did organizd really religion really twist up every good message?

chiefhog44 wrote:Founder of religion...doesn't make logic sense does it? This is what institutions have pushed us to believe, that there was one person that came up with, for example, the idea to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. Forcing people to choose what founder to follow to total consciousness, enlightenment if you will. There were several of these so called founders. That is why you, RedOne, study many different religions. You realize this. And once you do that, which it sounds like you have, you realize that they share most all of the core beliefs. I understand what you are saying, but in the context of studying, there should never be a founder of a religion. These are principles to help people govern themselves through their course of life, and ultimately find their consciousness or meaning.

Institutions have twited the meaning of what it means to be religious. They have turned it into a ritual following organization that will accept no other word. The underlying word has been lost in this process.

I would have to agree that there is no such thing as a "founder" of a religion. No so called "founder" of a religion actually founded a religion. Religions evolved from their teachings. I will stand corrected on that.

The rest of your comments I found to be insightful and enjoyed reading.

Thanks, Chief.

Deadskins wrote:I don't know if you get National Geographic or not (it's a great magazine, BTW, and I highly recommend it), but last December's issue featured an article about the King James Bible. It is a very scholarly researched book. I really had no idea just how much so until I read that article.

This is a good book on that same subject.

Jesus Christ wrote:Do unto other as others as you would have others do unto you. (Matt 7:12)

Hillel wrote:That which is hateful to you, do not unto another.

Siddhartha Gautama(Buddha) wrote:One should seek for others the happiness one desires for himself

langleyparkjoe wrote:Don't hurt others and treat people good.

Hmmmmm! . . . There is a new prophet among us?