The need for GOD...

Wait a minute I know this one!! because of our sins?.

To have a cool name when you hit finger with a hammer by accident!!

Jesus!! that hurt!!!

Just wouldn't sound right if you said:

Mohamed!!! dat hurt!!.

think?.

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ha

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's amazing how embedded in our language that name is, OMG

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I only used the PG version!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

----------
M*W: I believe it would be more politically correct to do the following:

1- When stumping your toe, screaming out Jesus' name while you're bowing in excruciating pain, tell Jesus you stumped your toe for Him, and you will be saved.
2- When giving birth, and the baby is coming out stretching every millimeter of your perineum, cry out to Jesus that you are doing this for Him.
3- When you are in the dentist's chair in the middle of a root canal, do it for Jesus, your savior, and not novocaine.
4- When you're standing on the corner after a heavy rain, and the city bus splashes you at full speed, thank Jesus for baptising you again.
5- When you're in the supermarket, and they won't take your check, thank Jesus loudly for giving you this lesson about material goods.
6- When you're on the freeway, and everyone is shooting you the finger, thank Jesus for the piece of shit you drive.
7- When you're at a public event, and trying to make a good impression, thank Jesus when you fart out loud for you worship him loudly.
8- When you're at church, and they pass the basket, silently thank Jesus that somehow the basket did not pass in front of you.
9- When you're at the doctor's office, getting your first prostate exam, bow down to Jesus as far as you can, and cough.
9- When you are getting to "know" some chick, remember to thank Jesus for that tight piece of ass you are pounding.
10- When you are at a funeral, thank Jesus for giving the belated their life, even if you hated the sorry son of a bitch.

"Praise God from whom all blessings flow,
Praise people here below,
Praise God ye heavenly host,
Praise God, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
Amen."

 

Just a minor correction got to understand our poor economical times:

When you are at church and they pass the basket full of doe, grab a few for yourself, you know the preacher eats well, besides jesus will understand!!.

Godless.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Godless wrote

Thank you for you response, Godless, but what do you mean by “a perfect book”?

From my searches in the NT, I have not found this verse. Could please site the chapter and verse for clarification?

13 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. 17 And He said to them, "What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?" 18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, "Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?" 19 And He said to them, "What things?" So they said to Him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22 Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23 When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24 And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see." 25 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. NKJV

What is the implication by using one verse, which Jesus said after He rose from the dead? Could you please explain?

If I am open-minded enough to read a non-theist’s website, in respect are you open-minded enough to read a theist’s website? What you are asking me to do, in turn I am asking you to do.
It is indeed an interesting site, but it does not refute God’s existence, the resurrection of Jesus, the witness of His disciples, or the rapid growth of Christianity in the 1st century.

THE CASE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD [PART I] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?referrer=google
THE CRAIG-PIGLIUCCI DEBATE: DOES GOD EXIST?
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-pigliucci0.html

 

Quantum Quack wrote

Maybe you should post a separate thread for those questions.

 

I am thinking of doing just that SVRP but I wonder the value of doing so.
The responses to the question would be quite predictable but the answer to the question elusive.

When considering the world dynamic at the time of Jesus' birth and life and the universal dynamic running in concordance it is hard to reconcile the two.

In a general way I understand that Jesus had taken on "God" like abilities in that he performed many actions that would normally be relegated to that of "God in the flesh", but also from what I understand his ability to repeat his miracles was severely limited. So Jesus went from one instant of ability to another.

As far as I know for instance he perfromed one resurection that being Lazarus??. And I question why he is not known to do many more resurections.

Jesus was known to have levitated, walking on water but again only one instance of ability.

I question these with the thought that if Jesus truely was as he said, he would not have died on the cross and infact be still alive today continuing his life of the extraordinary.

The problem I think is that Jesus like most persons of his time were very religious and believed in prophecy and superstition was considerable.

Jesus was doing battle with the physical reality of his ability and the notion that he was God in the flesh. Thus he compromised and became The "Son of God" instead thus dooming himself to the cross.

His mind and heart not capable of taming the enourmous energies that his actions created. Jesus suffered enourmously for his abilities and had to die. Death being the only way he could ever achieve peace.

In the meantime he did the most amazing thing. He took his role seriously and inspired the love of God and left the world with some marvelous concepts of justice and peace even though he himself suffered so.

I read somewhere that Jesus went through a moment were his bodies skin bled blood and that it was associated with fear and suffering. ( please correct me if I am wrong)

To do this really would take enourmous stress something that no man could normally withstand. For the skin to sweat blood is unbelievably traumatic.

So to me Jesus was a man who became God but could not accept this Godhood or learn how to discipline the energies at his disposal, thus he had to die and in doing so he used his own death to fulfill prophecy and to inspire a more loving approach to life for all that believed in the abilities he had shown.

You see, I do not consider Jesus in a religious context, I consider him in a much more universal context. God failed in his attempt to become the flesh of man, Jesus.

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Quantum Quack, and I respect your honest response. While reading it, there appeared to be more questions behind your statement but I felt that you already know what the answers would be if you posted them on this forum. If you don't mind, let me share my thoughts with you.

Jesus is the Messiah & fulfilled Old Testatment prophecies. There are more than 300 prophecies Jesus fulfilled during His lifetime. One of them is prophesied in Daniel 9:25, 26. According to the verse, the specific timeline of the appearance of the Messiah is after the rebuilding, and before the destruction, of Jerusalem and the temple. The destruction occurred in 70 AD.
The Old Testament gives a clear outline as to who, what, where and how the Messiah will appear.
Go to the following websites for more.
http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/moshiach.htm
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm

If following your statement is true, that Jesus died on the cross, how do you logically accountant for the witness of His disciples that they saw Him alive after He was crucified and buried?
Historians have found that there were a number of people proclaiming themselves as “messiahs” during the time of Jesus, inciting revolts or revolutions against the Roman authorities. And when these “messiahs” died, their followers dissolved into obscurity, only to follow another self-proclaimed “messiah”. (Acts 5:34- 39) This habit was evident of Jesus’s followers when the authorities came to arrest Jesus. His followers ran away and hid for their lives. With the death of Jesus, they should have dissolved and looked for another. But that didn’t happened. After some time they were out on the streets proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead and they were witnesses to that fact. (Acts 4:5- 14) They were bold enough to take the message of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead to the world. If they had not seen it with their own eyes it would be doubtful they would have given their lives for something they weren’t sure of. Jesus gave the responsibility of proclaiming His resurrection and the “good news” to the Apostles. For that they faced horrible executions, which is a strong indication they actually saw the resurrected Christ and believed what they taught. The testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus was written with their blood. It is doubtful they would have been able to do this great work of spreading the gospel if they did not really believe that they had seen the risen Lord with their own eyes.
http://www.biblepath.com/apostles.html

The Bible states in a number of verses that if you are searching for God with your whole heart, He will let you find Him. (De 4:29, 1Ch 28:9, 2Ch 15:2, 2Ch 15:15, Isa 55:6)
If God is an entity with an intelligence, and not some force that is part of nature, then those verses are promises anyone can put to the test.

So, Quantum Quack, how much of the Bible have you read?

 

SVRP, You have based your beliefs on the Behaviour of the Jesus and the disciples and this I admire. True the disciples did risk their lives for a cause that they velieved in and this is to be considered as strong evidence towards the veracity o ftheir claims. I agree that their testimony and witness must have been of some substance.

I too, look at behaviour when I read the bible which is rarely. I look for signs of physical action to support the words. I take the bible and allow for subjective crypticisms and attempt to see the truth behind the obvious and not so obvious contradictions.

It is true for example that there is an ongoing support for a belief that is over 2000 years old and whether you agree with this belief or not is indication enough that some truth exists behind that belief, whether Buddhism, Christianity or Islam.

Something doesn't exist for too long if it is all a lie.. It can't. By nature a lie will die. How ever the embelishment factor also has to be considered. We humans love to embelish or exagerate and this too is human behaviour.

So I look for behaviours that support the belief.

As to how much of the bible I have read, I would have to admit at this point very little, certainly not as much as some but more than others.

As with most I admit my readings are some what selective. The reasoning for such being that I think of the bible as a book of poetry, metaphor and cliche. A cryptic historical account, a puzzle that can keep us amused for eternity, because the book is about humanity and it is just as incomprehensible as humanity ( God )

Any way must away......

 

Thanks for links SRVP.

They were very interesting and some what contradicting.

My assesment:

No one can claim the existence or non existence of an entity with no "identity"
Hence the word (god) has no identity!.

What identity have theists given god?

A supernatural being. This does not make sense and it is a contradiction theists are adding another word in the mix, that has prefixes of "super" and "natural" combined to explain an entity with no identity!.
Super=above, extreme, beyond etc..
Natural=nature
these two words combined is god?
No! these two words are explaining that god is beyond our comprehension because its above nature?. Nothing can be above nature, this would be a metaphisical contradiction.

1:The First cause argument (The cosmological argument)
If everything must have a cause, then god must have a had a cause. If god had a cause, then 'he' was not the first cause (or uncaused) cause. If god did not have a cause, then not everything needs a cause. If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe is one of those things which also does not need a cause.

I do thank you though, it was tedious reading yet it does not clarify what god is, or show emperical proof that a god need exist, or exists.

Only man can say (I am)!. and these words were spoken in the bible, this words represents a beign of human nature not supernatural.

ATHEISM: Every argument for god and every attribute ascribed to him rests on a false "metaphysical" premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence--some "supernatural realm" you must do it by openly denying reason, dispencing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, "To hell with argument, I have faith." That, of course, is a willfull rejection of reason. Ayn Rand.

Godless.

 

The Craig-Pigliucci Debate:

C-this is the stand that is proper that he too made it clear just as I did in my own words above:

Quote:

So let me start by clarifying what is it that we are actually talking about tonight and what my position is, and therefore we need to talk about the ways of science and its limits. About the limits of science: science cannot investigate negative statements, and you cannot prove negative statements, so no matter what whoever will tell you. There is no way you can prove the inexistence of something, unless you define that something by positive statements. So, for example, you can't ask me to come up with a proof of the inexistence of God without clarifying what you mean by God--it's completely impossible.

This is my stand as well.

Godless.

 

----------
M*W: Hey, you said you were leaving for good. So get out already Mister Little Wienie.

 

Godless wrote

Thank you for you response, Godless, but consider what Quantum Quack’s previous response when he emphasized that the burden of proof of God’s existence rests on God. God must provide His identity. I am asking questions on what has God done in the past and/or present to provide the proof of His existence and to show us His identity, that He is an entity with an intelligence and more than just a force of nature. Pointing to the resurrection of Jesus as an action only God could have done is one of them.

Using “word arguments” for your conclusions is fun to read but it doesn’t contain any substance. For example, scientists are always looking for “cause and effect” in their experiments. They ask questions like, “What caused this item to happen that lead to this cause and effect, that lead to this cause and effect, …” and so on. Eventually they want to work back to something called “The Uncaused Cause,” the subject, object, item, or force, that caused everything into existence. Therefore, if everything that was caused can lead back to a previous cause, that leads to another previous cause, and finally to the “Uncaused Cause”, then your statement, “not everything needs a cause,” is redundant. And your following statement, “If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe is one of those things which also does not need a cause,” is built on redundancy and has no substance in its conclusion.

Maybe you can re-state your position another way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SVRP,
You may recall I talked of universal concordance, and to me this is evidence of the existence of a sleeping giant that has the title "God"

Through out history there is evidence that man has determined as "God" inspired. It is often quoted that God works though people and not at people.
When circumstances are in accord his work becomes more obvious but always utilising the intellect and feelings of the persons concerned. In other words I would suggest that there is ample evidence that God exists but not as a self standing, self determining individual but rather an entity that works through people with out an individual state of his own. This is the main thrust of my opinion and belief if you like.

The above is only my attempt to communicate in a context that you and others can understand.

 

However then this would be a contradiction at self volition or free will.
If an entity works through people, by force or supernatural powers that an individual looses self volition than the entity could be considered evil, and not benevolent, or we are just pawns of supernatural beigns to do with us what ever they like, so in essense man has no free will, if he is influenced by an entity that can manipulate our actions and thoughts.

Godless.

 

I must admit I copied it!! LOL, from an old book. How about this: http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-why_gods_cannot.html

Why Gods Cannot Exist
by Jon Nelson

Asking god-believers to define or describe the god they believe in can produce an enormously bewildering variety of responses. There seem to be as many definitions and descriptions of this god as there are people who believe in its existence. Since there are so many variations, it is obvious that these people cannot all be speaking of the same thing. Also obvious is the fact that believers always fashion their god to suit their own particular personality. If the believer is morose by nature, their god will also be morose. If they are happy and contented, so is their god. Objectively analyzed, their gods are nothing more than extensions of their own individual personalities.

Such a being as god cannot be said to exist, for the simple reason that things that do exist never produce such a wide variety of responses. God, if she/he/it/they exists, must be shown to possess definable attributes just like all other existents (things that exist) do. What attributes do believers claim their god possesses?

Theists offer many different responses and rationalizations to this question. Some of these are downright silly. For example, they will insist that "god is love." The fallacy of this statement should be obvious, for we already know what love means. If the words "love" and "god" are interchangeable, why do we need the word "god" at all? Why not simply eliminate the word "god" and be done with it?

Over the centuries, theologians have come up with a number of alleged descriptions of god. They tell us that god is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Notice however that these attributes contradict one another. First of all, no being can possibly be both omniscient and omnipotent. Why? Simply because if god knows everything, then he has predetermined everything; he knows in advance what is going to happen. This means that nothing can be changed. Neither god nor anything else can change events in a pre-ordained universe. Therefore, an omniscient god cannot be an omnipotent one.

Secondly, omniscience and omnipotence contradict omnibenevolence. For if god is all-powerful and all-good, why would he allow evil to exist in the universe? If god is all-powerful, he has the means to eliminate evil. If he is all-knowing, he must know of the evil that is occurring; indeed, he must know that it is going to occur before it does. If god is all-good, therefore, he must intervene.

The concept of free will is usually trotted out at this point to "justify" god's refusal to take action when evil is taking place. However, as we have seen, god's omniscience means that everything is pre-ordained. Man cannot possess free will if everything he says and does is known in advance by god. More to the point, the free will rationalization is a smokescreen; free will or not, god is still not doing anything about eliminating evil. The Holocaust of the Second World War alone is sufficient proof of that. Is it moral to stand idly by when you have the power and knowledge to prevent or eliminate evil?

How would a human being be judged if he was able to prevent a homicide with no harm to himself and yet did nothing? We are fallible beings, yet god is said to be infallible, making his inactivity all the more morally inexcusable. If we can judge humans to be immoral, we can likewise judge a god to be immoral.

Some believers try to rationalize the existence of their god by reference to science. They try to posit god as a quasi-scientific "explanation" for the existence of the universe and everything in it. They argue that, since everything that exists requires a causal explanation, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. The universe must therefore have a cause, according to this argument.

There are a number of fallacious ideas contained in this argument. The first is that it assumes that positing god as the creator of the universe somehow solves the problem posed by an infinite regress of causes. Believers who advance this argument tell us that god is the uncaused first cause of existence. However, this does not solve the problem. Any third-grade child could ask the obvious question: Who or what created god?

If the believer insists that god does not require a cause, that he "just is," then why can he not accept the idea that the universe "just is?" Thus, we see that a natural universe requires the fewest assumptions. In logic this is known both as Occam's Razor and The Principle of Parsimony.

Notice too another logical fallacy: the circular reasoning of the first cause argument. The believer is saying, in effect: "Everything except god has a cause. Therefore the cause of everything is god." The believer is bringing his conclusion, i.e. that god exists, into his premise, i.e. that everything has a cause. He is trying to exempt god from the first cause argument by simply insisting that god does not require a first cause without supplying any logical reasons why we should accept this as true. The believer tries to set up a "problem" (the existence of the universe) and then immediately try and exempt their "solution" from the foundational premise of the problem. Any believer who continues to use this argument after the fallacies are pointed out is simply proving that there is something other than intellectual integrity guiding his or her actions.

It should also be pointed out that, since god is usually considered to be objectively unknowable, how does positing something unknowable (god) in place of the unknown (the origin of the universe) explain anything? Moreover, if god is going to be offered as an "explanation" every time we don't know something, why do we need science at all? This is the old "god of the gaps" argument and it too is fundamentally flawed: To ask for an explanation for a particular phenomenon of nature is to ask what specifically has caused it to come about. Answering the question by reference to a supernatural deity does not answer the question, for it tells us nothing at all about what this alleged god actually is, or of how it operates.

This leads us to the most fundamental error of the first cause argument. The argument wrongly assumes that the universe requires a causal explanation. However, this falls apart once it is realized that the existence of the universe is the irreduceable primary at the base of all causal change. When we speak of the universe, we are speaking of all that exists. If a god exists, it is part of that existence. If it does not exist, it obviously cannot be the first cause of existence. Nothing is outside of existence. Even if it were granted that there were some kind of uncaused first cause, on what basis can it be argued that this must be a supernatural deity? A naturalistic first cause seems never to have entered into the thinking of god-believers. If there is a primary cause, it might just as well be existence itself, which we can perceive, rather than a supernatural agent, which we cannot.

The universe operates according to the laws of identity and causality. The Law of Identity, first formulated by Aristotle over two thousand years ago, says that everything is what it is; A is A. Nothing, therefore, can be A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. The Law of Causality is an extension of the Law of Identity. It says that a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. For example, a human mother cannot give birth to a horse. The universe operates under these two primary laws. Why do we need an invisible, non-tangible deity to get it started? More fundamentally, how can a being that possesses no identifiable physical traits actually do anything? How can he be all-powerful unless he physically exists? How can he be all-knowing without possessing a physical nature? How can he be all-good unless he is physically able to do good things?

Whether the primary material of the universe is matter, anti-matter, or some as-yet-undiscovered form of energy, the existence of the universe is a metaphysical given. Existence is, in and of itself, the "first cause". To speak of a cause for existence is to demand a contradiction. The universe is the primary fact of existence; it cannot be reduced any further.

The "design" argument is another feeble rationalization offered up as "proof" of god's existence. This argument states that the universe, in all its multifaceted complexity, could only have come about by design, which believers argue could only mean by a god. This argument, like all the others, is innately fallacious. The principle of graduated complexity alone destroys it. This principle states that any creator is of necessity more complex than anything it can create. For example, the human mind is more complex than anything that we have ever constructed. Accordingly, god must be much more complex than the universe, and must as a consequence require an even more complex designer. Who therefore designed god?

The design argument also ignores the key issue of purpose. Everything that is consciously created is created for a purpose. Here, the traditional watchmaker argument turns against the believer. Certainly, there are no extraneous parts in the design of a watch. Every part of the watch is there for a purpose and every single piece of mechanism can be explained by reference to that purpose. Therefore, if believers think that there is design in the universe, then they must show the purpose of every single thing in the universe. After all, as with the watch, there can be no extraneous parts in the universe. The believer must tell us what god's purpose was in creating every living thing, every remote star, every atom, every grain of sand on the beach, and every thing else in the material universe. This is of course an insurmountable task, and it checkmates once and for all the design argument.

All of the arguments for god's existence focus on what god is alleged to do, or to have done in the past. Believers wax eloquent on what god does, but are conspicuously silent on what god is. This point is crucially important and cannot be over-emphasized. As most of us learned in elementary school, every verb must have a qualifying noun. "Running" is not an existent; but things that run do exist. The statement "giffles run" is as cognitively meaningless as the statement "god created the universe". Things that run can be objectively described and thus proven to exist. By the same token, saying that god is defined by his actions (i.e. by his being the creator) avoids the central issue of just what god actually is. Before he can do something, he must be something, which means god must be definable. All conscious actions presuppose the existence of an entity that causes the action to take place. To try and exempt god from this fact is worse than mere special pleading; it violates all common sense.

God, in order to exist, must possess certain identifiable physical characteristics. An entity without attributes is a contradiction in terms.

In trying to escape from this logical quagmire, believers often resort to what is known as negative theology. God is not like us; god is not material, god is not finite, and so on. While they might supply a series of non-descriptive personality traits (loving, powerful, caring, intelligent, just, and so on), these are tactics of evasion. It fails to tell us exactly what it is that is supposed to be loving, caring, intelligent and just. How is a "being" that possesses no definable positive attributes any different from not existing at all?

Finally, notice what happens to word definitions when used by believers to describe their god. Words like "existence," "being," and "create" presuppose physical realities in their correct use. However, when used by theists, the connection to physical reality is severed; we must re-define our words in order to accommodate the believer's imaginary deity. Yet to do this is to sever all connective links to reality For example, to describe god, as many believers have done, as a "non-physical being," is to ignore the fact that the word "being" presupposes physical existence. To accept this kind of verbal contortionism, you must reject normative descriptions of these words and replace them with new "definitions" which in fact are nothing more than rationalizations served up to justify the unjustifiable. They do nothing more than to render human cognition invalid. Consistently adhered to, this anti-rational approach would leave humankind on its knees, blind to the nature of existence, endlessly beseeching a nightmarish deity that cannot even be described for assistance that never comes.

There was a time when this type of thinking ruled the world. We call that period in our history the Dark Ages.

Godless.

 

Godless, I actually have no problem with any of the above post. All it proves to me is that our preconceptions of what God is are the problem not whether he or it exists in the first place.

The personification of God is the biggest problem, for "God" is not a person but a people, a universe, not some ego orientated entity that points and commands.

It is only when we give God free will that we get into trouble as he like everything else does not have free will, in an absolute sense that we seem to think He/it has.

To discuss the nature of God invariably falls down to personality which I suppose is understandable but just emphasises the confusion we have about the notion of what God is.

It's not that hard to accept that he universe ( god) came to be in an instance of spontaneous self creation. I have no problem with this except that I don't understand the why or the How of it in a way that can be considered logical.

Before teh Bigbang it is suggested that time did not exist, so why do we think Logic existed. Shit Logic may not have existed until quite recently for all we know.

Why does spontaneous creation have to conform to logic when logic didn't exist?

THis is initself quite invalid in that an omni potent God would be quite capable of changing a future that he ordained, Again we have personification but what the hell.

We argue about these things and constantly fall in to the arguement such as the above statement. It places a limitation on an unlimited entity that the writer is imagiining to exist as an arguement.

In one hand God is unlimited then in the other we place a limitation. All I can say is Make up your minds, he is either omni everything or he isn't. If you are gong to argue the ole' omni arguement let the logic go all the way and don't stop until you do and then when your finished and read your logic you'll hopefully smile and think how silly we are.

God does not have to be logical it's as simple as that. Why place a logical condition on this entity everyone is referring to as "God".

Just becasue he doesn't fullfill a scientific logic or even a rational one means jack shit for the arguement for OR against.

God in the usual contexts is an enigma, a puzzle, a logic riddle that has and will entertain people for eons.

Personally I prefer to think of "God" as simply the uiniverse and everthing in it including all the logic riddles and puzzling that goes on. For me it is that straight forward. The universe happens to include humanity but is not just humanity. When you can tell me how the human heart or brain works in full then you can claim to have scratched the surface when it comes to defining "God" and until then we are only guessing.

edit
You may have noticed that I just fell for the same trap in that I am implying the personification of God by my last sentence...shit ...is there no end...ha

 

The bible say amongst other things that:

We shouldn't wonder that much about what's hidden, that many people have got lost that way. Not that it is a rule, but it's more a advice (that I think shouldn't be overlooked).

We should search for wizdom. One thing I like in the bible (translated freely): I asked the deep "do you have it?" but the deep replied "no, it's not here". Then I asked the oceans "do you hold it?" but the oceans replied "no, it's not here", I asked the heavens but it replied "it's not here either", only God knows the way to wizdom.

It's curious also as it's described that not even God knew at first what it was, it was with Him from the beginning and God looked at it, wondered about it, turned it and watched it from every angle, then He found that it was good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. It shows that the nature of God is not just the doomer of mankind and wrath, it can also be curiosity and excitement.

Wizdom can be a light in the dark, a guide to find the right way.

I think awareness and existance are evidence that God exists. Maybe we are aware because God say to us that we exist, "I AM".

 

Thanks for answer Quantum..

Sometimes I question why I'm here in Sci-forums, It is not to change peoples mind, it is to debate with mostly other athiests, or find tha hey!! I'm not alone.

I don't believe in a supernatural being, though there's no proof or logic in my philosophy to believe in such an entity with no identity!.

Cyper the bible is full of contradictions, it is mostly a historical document of the hebrews, not a manual from god.

If someone inocent say a child were to ask me; "were is god?" I would tend to asnwer that god is within us, that I am god, and that you are also a god, all the good that we do is because god is within us.

Perhaps this would do for a child's inocent mind.

For an adult to ask my about the concept of "where is god?" I would have to ask him/her what god is? Everyone has a different defenetion of what god is, so if you explain to me that god is a spirit, then hey! you have a spirit god is within you, you are god!. If you were to explain to me that god is this supernatural beign omni-everything then I start to have doubts and objections to this mythical beign. Cause nothing can create itself, and then create a universe. That is silly!!.

Godless.