ah....evidence....
Yes, God does exist. Asking for proof is folly!
Even atheists and agnostics believe things they can't prove.
Why do they make plans for tomorrow. They can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes, it has been proven that the sun has risen every day in our past....but there is absolutely NO proof it will rise tomorrow. They just have faith that it will.
Why do they believe that they have a heart inside their body? Yes, it has been proven that humans have hearts....but have they ever seen theirs? Perhaps there is a troll inside their body squeezing a little rubber ducky to make their blood flow. They do not have proof but they have faith that they are like all other humans and have a heart.
they fight against the idea that there is a REAL God because that scares them. It would cramp their sinful lifestyles, open the question that they might have to suffer an eternity in Hell for their sins and, most importantly, make them out fools for denying God.
2006-12-26 04:49:26 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well, I am rather taken with the "rubber ducky" theory, but that old "God is gonna get you" mantra still takes the pineapple upside-down cake of sophistry.
2006-12-26 04:55:39 · answer #1 · answered by skepsis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is.
"It would cramp their sinful lifestyles, open the question that they might have to suffer an eternity in Hell for their sins and, most importantly, make them out fools for denying God."
Why? First of all, I hope I am correct in assuming that your use of the word "favourite" is sarcastic in nature. That is how I am responding to it!
The statement I chose is highly judgmental. It assumes that we all accept the notion of "sin." From my viewpoint, there is no sin. Only cause and effect.
The statement also assumes that we all accept the notion of "hell." There is no hell save the one that we create in our minds and for ourselves.
The final part of this statement is pure judgment on the part of the writer. We are "fools" if we deny the existence of god. And in particular, the Christian god.
There is no room for argument let alone critical thinking with a statement like this one. There is only black and white in the mind of the writer. Nothing from the spectrum of colour let alone the idea of a muddy shade of gray.
I personally find this terribly sad because it denies any possibility of growth. It stops growth cold.
2006-12-26 05:06:21 · answer #2 · answered by gjstoryteller 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For me the best part is that God loves us all and we all can be with Him in eternity if we want to . And if you do not want to then you do not have to. I cannot prove this other way than with the Bible and what it says. If I am wrong, and we just die..that is a disappointment but I really do not suffer for it when I am dead. I have so much to gain if I am right. Because the eternity is a long long time. We do not get to heaven for any other reason than for grace and mercy of God.
2006-12-26 04:56:45 · answer #3 · answered by SeeTheLight 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are lots of ways to explain life. Faith in a higher being is only one of those choices. Science is yet another.
However, it's important to keep in mind that it is very UNLIKELY that we will be able explain life either by scientific or religious approaches.
So, keep an open mind about the views of others, and don't make judgements about others based on your beliefs, which are only beliefs.
2006-12-26 04:55:25 · answer #4 · answered by Allan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless I'm misunderstanding you this is just a really bad statement of Saint Anselm's ontological argument for the existance of God. i.e. God exists because he has to and proof is pointless. Alas, Kant showed that existance isn't necessary (a real predicate is what he said) so while we can imagine god that doesn't necessitate his existance. What I'm saying is that just because I haven't seen my heart doesn't mean I need to have faith to know it is there.
2006-12-26 04:56:00 · answer #5 · answered by anecdoteman1 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
lol. i like that it has nothing to do with logic.
logically speaking if all of 1 million objects have something, chances are quite high another object will have it too.
probabilities would have it, that if an event occured at random, at least once a day, then chances are it would happen the following day.
all of this can mathematically proven using statisticans and probabilities. however, god cant be proven using either.
--- i think the only actual true statement one can make about god is they cant prove nor disprove his existance.
2006-12-26 04:52:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you whole heartily. I think the biggest deterrent for atheists and the such from joining/believing in God is their lifestyle would be greatly affected. Does this mean they are selfish?
2006-12-26 04:55:38 · answer #7 · answered by Presagio 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nice case -
The focus is not the argument but seeing God work to bring people to him and eternal life - but we can be part of that.
2006-12-26 04:52:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i like the 'no easily Scotsman fallacy'. additionally they contradict themselves in greater advantageous than one way "Hitler grew to grow to be not a genuine Christian applying fact he killed human beings" Christian is defined as somebody who does not pass against the training of the Bible good the Bible does help homicide That assertion additionally contradicts the purpose of Jesus dieing and the message approximately forgiveness
2016-12-11 16:13:58 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm, just the old wishful thinking that their "faith" is somehow up to par with real evidence.
Arguments like this is what the IPU and FSM are made for.
2006-12-26 04:53:02 · answer #10 · answered by nondescript 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋