Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
okay, some of you may have missed this because it was between two large posts, so here's the full statement above. Now I'm not asking for anybody to prove the existence of God or not, the only thing that's been asked is for your opinion about the statement in a respectful manner, thank you.
Perhaps you didn't think it through. I'm not telling anyone to prove the existance of God. Let me explain.
The premise is that we are creating these things to prove/explain the unprovable/unexplainable.
Well you can't even prove that your statement is true/fact that we are creating these things to prove or explain the unexplainable. So the argument is null.
Mat 22:28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
Mat 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Mat 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
To answer the OP, I do not believe the premise. I believe that God created mankind, and made them "male and female". I'm not sure what else to say to that.
It is pretty obvious that Jesus is saying there is no marriage, basically all the angels are single. You have to insert your own belief that Jesus is saying all angels are genderless.
Back to the OP, before science and scientific reasoning, it was easier to believe in a god or gods to explain events in nature. Meteors and comets were considered bad omens but now we know what they are.
(THINK about that thought for minute before you let your fingers fly...)
I apologise for my defective intellect. Life is hard without the ability to think. I struggle every day. Mea Culpa for having an opinion which differs from yours.
I am very open minded though and would love proof positive of your god so if he wants to drop by, my diary is pretty clear for the next few weeks. I would be delighted to admit my error in judgement should a proof ever present itself. I've been waiting all my life pretty much.
As to the thoughts in my post, I am hardly the first one to have come up with the concept that god is man-made not the other way around. Philosophers and great thinkers, have for thousands of years pondered this very question.
And all far greater minds than you or I will ever be. And yes the same goes for religion. As far as I know there is no disproving a negative but a positive should be fairly easy surely ?
How can I prove does not exist . He/she's not there ! I can hardly find proof of something which isn't there ?
So right back at you :
Oh Yea, prove god to me . I rest my case.
I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not. I am , I assume still entitled to my little brainless opinions ?
Perhaps you didn't think it through. I'm not telling anyone to prove the existance of God. Let me explain.
The premise is that we are creating these things to prove/explain the unprovable/unexplainable.
Well you can't even prove that your statement is true/fact that we are creating these things to prove or explain the unexplainable. So the argument is null.
Again 0+0 = 0
I have thought this through very thoroughly and I think you have misunderstood the full statement, God did not create man,Man created god, to explain the unexplained, the superstition. There is no definitive answer to this statement, there are only opinions and that is all I'm asking for. The statement does not ask for proof or not. It is merely to get people to think in an uninhibited way about the statement and to give their opinion, nothing more, but with respect to others' opinions. Thank you
It is pretty obvious that Jesus is saying there is no marriage, basically all the angels are single. You have to insert your own belief that Jesus is saying all angels are genderless.
The context involved sexual relations...unless you are married and don't have sex.
How can I prove does not exist . He/she's not there ! I can hardly find proof of something which isn't there ?
So right back at you :
You can't see molecules - do you believe they are there? Why? Someone found evidence they are there, correct? Did YOU ever see one? No, you are believing what someone stated was true. But lets assume they were not even discovered yet...does it mean they didn't exist just because you couldn't see or prove them?
I have thought this through very thoroughly and I think you have misunderstood the full statement, God did not create man,Man created god, to explain the unexplained, the superstition. There is no definitive answer to this statement, there are only opinions and that is all I'm asking for. The statement does not ask for proof or not. It is merely to get people to think in an uninhibited way about the statement and to give their opinion, nothing more, but with respect to others' opinions. Thank you
I understand your reasoning, but do you also understand that the very premise of the question alienates all believers in God? How can you expect to get opinion from someone who believes what the premise says doesn't exist?
So tell me, do you still beat your wife?
If you can answer that, then you understand what my answer to your question sounds like.
The statement does not say that God does not exist, from the very beginning of man's existence he has had to have something or someone to be able to explain the things that he was incapable of explaining at that time, so he created a supreme being to be able to explain the things that his mind was not capable of understanding at the time, a prime example, the first time that man encountered fire, a bolt of lightning hit a tree and the tree ignited and man was witness to this, now not knowing or having the capabilities to be able to explain how that bolt of lightning was created and how it was able to cause that tree to ignite and produce fire, how do you think he explained it? He created some supernatural being to be able to explain how this incident happened.
As our sciences has advanced and our knowledge has increased and we have a better understanding of how things are done or created, we are finding that they have less to do with God or some supreme Creator and more to do with our sciences and understanding of things. This is how I see that statement.
(THINK about that thought for minute before you let your fingers fly...)
i think the point is that the existence or illusion of God cannot be proven to any but yourself. we can go on arguing about whether He exists or not, and we will get nowhere. beside that, the purpose as i understood the OP was not to argue God's existence, but to add our own perspective of the OP, to tell others what we believe and how that statement does or does not make sense to us.
granted, there have been a few running around here trying to start arguments, trying to insult others for their respective beliefs. but that does not mean that we need to become hostile about it.
the very act of being condescending and hostile, of insulting others for their beliefs, automatically undercuts your own position. it shows that the hostile party does not, and will not even bother to consider the other side of the argument, much less respect or pleasantly interact with the other party.
in other words, it speaks of immaturity and narrow-mindedness, which is exactly what you do not want to be transmitting to others during a theological/scientific debate (especially us christians out there that should be practicing the traits of charity and humility that we claim to believe in).
now, jv, this is not directed specifically at you, though you were the one to post the catalystic remark. i have been reading much of this into others' posts, a complete disregard for the beliefs of others, the inability to critically think an issue through and respons with respect and analytical thought (which in the case of some such as visvaldis (spelling?) comes as hypocritical, as he was claiming the same thing about christians in the very same thread.
point is: this thread was meant to be a place to post a thought, read the thoughts of others, and come away enlightened in whatever way you can. if you cannot read through a thread that started out just about as close to neutral as i have seen here, then you should probably stick to the hobbies/crafts thread.
You can't see molecules - do you believe they are there? Why? Someone found evidence they are there, correct? Did YOU ever see one? No, you are believing what someone stated was true. But lets assume they were not even discovered yet...does it mean they didn't exist just because you couldn't see or prove them?
Did science invent molecules? LOL Hardly.
This is a matter of size and the limitations of the human eye. With the invention of electron microscopes scientists can observe molecules.
I have never seen a molecule, but accept their existence from credible sources: scientists. Scientific discoveries do not deal with the supernatural.
Also, the ability to see molecules does not favor any political group, religion or myth, it is a scientific fact that molecules exist.
Centuries ago people believed that diseases were caused by evil demons, but scientific research discovered that diseases are caused by viruses.
If god wanted his existence to be known, why does he make it so very difficult?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be delighted to admit my error in judgement should a proof ever present itself. I've been waiting all my life pretty much. 
