since you all missed the point...(typical)
The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might also make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists.Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.
2007-05-26 17:19:41 · 18 answers · asked by LIVINGmylife 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
right you are.what baffles me is how much more faith you need to believe the big bang theory.anyone who understands it can see it is utterly implausable.and as you say,theres nothing soothing about frying in hell.
2007-05-26 17:25:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Ahh, that's a little better.
If you are arguing from a Deist perspective, your definition of "God" is much different than it would be if you were arguing from the perspective of one of the dominant Abrahamic faiths. I personally believe that the claim "The Bible is Myth" is much better supported by evidence than the claim "The Bible is the True and Holy word of the One True God". But if you're not talking about the God of the Bible, but instead the Deist concept of God, then there isn't much evidence either way, for or against the existence of such a God.
Now, obviously I am disagreeing with you, since you claim there is sufficient evidence to have you convert from agnosticism to Deism. But you have me at a disadvantage, because you haven't named your evidence. I expect that if you do, I will be able to argue that there are superior alternative interpretations of the evidence that do not require a god, Deist or otherwise.
2007-05-27 00:34:44 · answer #2 · answered by Jim L 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
gods are man made constructs based upon the NEED of the person. one can look at the idoltry law...
Deut 4:15-16 Since you saw no form on the day the the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire. beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of man or female...(the text continues to further mention OTHER forms).
Basically, all forms are IDOLS there is ONLY the SPIRIT. Once a person starts creating a god, they are limiting the SPIRIT, making the god good or bad, peaceful or warlike, etc.
Of course YOUR god cannot exist for another. The only way a person COULD see IT is if you gave the definitions/concept/forms/idols of that god. And one isn't supposed to play with idols.
2007-05-27 00:27:20 · answer #3 · answered by Lion Jester 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am interested in your claim that "the idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false." If you actually have such, fame and fortune will be yours, for you will be the first person -- ever -- to have any, and I would be delighted to know what it is. I am a scientist, and am always on the lookout for evidence that my beliefs may be wrong.
2007-05-27 00:29:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Santa doesn't promise eternal life. That's why we dump the fat elf when we are old enough to reason him out of existence.
This is something new for me.. a deist being preachy. Interesting.
2007-05-27 00:28:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What evidence?
And of course non-contingent beings are easier to believe in because since there can be no evidence of their existence,they only require belief to be believed in.
2007-05-27 00:28:12 · answer #6 · answered by October 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope.
That post doesn't make any sense either.
They're fun, though.
They walk the line of almost sounding like you're on to something, but never quite getting anywhere.
Keep it up!
2007-05-27 00:26:35 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are obviously not a deist, as they dont worship god, just acknowledge his existance, and see him as uninvolved in todays affairs.
2007-05-27 00:28:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We "typically" missed the point because you're making about zero sense.
First of all, NO ONE uses the IPU to try to prove / disprove God. It's just a cute joke and a bumper sticker gag. You're intentionally trying to straw man via the IPU and it's not pretty.
Second of all, I'm much to tired to explan all the other reasons why your post is nonsense.
2007-05-27 00:24:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
why are you brainwashing people with your lies. stop selling the idea of god because you arent getting paid now. since god is said to be god of persuasion then why have man convert others when he can do so himself.
2007-05-27 01:54:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You spend way too much time getting intimate with farm animals.
2007-05-27 00:42:40 · answer #11 · answered by dhalia_1977 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋