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.
We have agreed that science is yet to have an answer so we will use logic and intelligence to discuss the matter - you perhaps wouldn’t understand this.
Punching up after asking THIS question is most amusing.
Science does not have an answer yet when we ponder upon the fundamental question of “what or who started it all?
We only have our limited logic and intelligence (that varies from person to person) to make our assertions to answer this fundamental question.
What was there before universe? The answer is, - Either, “NOTHING”, or “WE DONT KNOW”.
If “NOTHING”, then the universe cannot decide to create itself when it did not exist.
It’s ridiculous. You can not decide to create yourself when you don’t exist.
If the answer is “WE DONT KNOW” - then there is always a possibility of God (call it a “force with intelligence). And there is always a possibility of “no God”.
It’s then up to us to base our assertions on logic, intelligence and research to form the faith whether God exists or does not exist.
Science cannot answer yet - so neither side has any evidence to support their faith - be it Atheists or Theists.
ask yourself this.
should we base a claim on what we do know or base a claim on what we don't know?
For my personally, I do not know the full answer but I do have some very basic and fundamental conditions, call it frame of references, to try judge to whether an entity can be considered a God or not.
1 - He MUST be ONE.
2 - He MUST NOT rely on anything.
3 - He begot NONE, nor was he begotten
4 - There is nothing equal to him. 5 - God will reveal himself to me only after my death.
Now with these 5 very basic conditions, I can judge and make a decision whether an entity that claims to be God, meets these conditions or not?
Like fishbrains, I will at least give you points for attempting to spell out these criteria. Each of them could be discussed, but let's just focus on #5....
Why is it a "basic and fundamental condition" that God would only reveal himself after your death?? That appears to be an entirely random, arbitrary, manmade... and highly personalized... requirement. One that is neither necessary (for things to work) nor supported by any logic or reason. The next person over could establish a criterion that says God must be revealed during her lifetime, and that would have just as much validity. If so, then these conditions only hold for you (or any other person who establishes their criteria). At which point we realize that this and any other concept of "god" is purely in the eye of the beholder, and purely made up by that beholder, and brings us no closer to "The Truth" than whatever I (or any other) choose to make up. It's hard to see the societal value in that, even if it gives each of us personal satisfaction or comfort?
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 01-25-2019 at 10:52 AM..
We know we don't know it all ... so back to the original question.
should we base a claim on what we do know or base a claim on what we don't know?
me, I know the periodic table pretty well.
If I say, I freely choose to have faith in the existence of God, how is that a claim?
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.
