There are 6 choices, 14 votes for rob7's debate

How can you believe in God?

I have a friend who is quite intelligent and a university grad,major in poli/sci,minor in economics and yet he still believes in god.He's quite capable of using his critical intelligence for assessing different political theories and their consequences and yet seems to be incapable of using this critical capacity to see that god is a human fiction.He's a christian and when I ask him what happened to all the poor folk that had the misfortune of being born prior to J.C. and forced to live an entire existence under different religeous teachings(Egyptians,Aztecs,Myans,Babalonians,and countless other billions of humans born,raised and died in nameless caves,huts,and villages) he doesn't have an answer and doesn't see the incongruity in the sheer randomness of being born at a time that has christian teachings.How can someone cut off thier critical capacities like that?It baffles my mind.I suppose this question applies to all religeous believers,intelligent or not.

• So?

  Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe in everything the Bible or whatever you stemmed from.

  Personally, I find it illogical not to believe in God. How did existence come from nothing? How could something start without anything around to start it? It just seems to point to a supernatural entity that exists outside of our laws of physics and even logic.

  35%  Voted for by Weydon, Everlasting-Fallout, looking4realtruth, Farseer, pnktrky.

  View 26 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • rob7
    March 30, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Good questions Weydon.I prefer to accept ignorance as part of the human condition and won't employ a fictional character to make the uncomfortable and as yet,unanswerable ulitimate questions disappear.I'll simply say "I don't know."
  • 
    Weydon
    March 30, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Hahahahaha "and won’t employ a fictional character" That was great. I'll admit there's a hefty chance my reasoning is because I was already brought up to believe in God, but even if I was bought up an atheist, I think I'd figure this "God" cat is a strong candidate for whatever supernatural thingamajig that managed to start the "first thing".
  • looking4realtruth
    April 7, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Tell the Apostles that Jesus Christ was a 'fictional character'. They would not have suffered and died for a lie. Read the Bible. They did not die in their sleep. Some of their families were even tortured. They would not have endured this all for a lie. Also, as I'm writing this I'm thinking about all the Islamic jihadists that are actually dying and murdering for a lie. But this is a different situation. They were not there. They did not meet Mohammed (idk if i spelled that right). What they do requires great amounts of faith. The Apostles did not require great amounts of faith. They were there. They walked and talked with Jesus. They would have needed a little faith but they would have known if it was a lie or not directly. How they led their lives if proof that it is not a lie.
  • • 
      Weydon
      April 8, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      "Tell the Apostles that Jesus Christ was a ‘fictional character’." I think he was talking about God. Few people dispute Jesus' existence. "But this is a different situation. They were not there. " Nor did you meet Jesus or his Apostles. But people did meet Hitler and Pol Pot and they suffered and died for their beliefs, not to mention crazy Dan of the local cult claiming to be God. All of this means nothing. "How they led their lives if proof that it is not a lie." You're right! In fact, I'm gonna go take a couple pills and wait for the mothership to come, because contemporary people have done this while meeting and believing in their savior. And, as we all know, if someone firmly believes in something to the point of dying for it--they're always 100% right. Even during wars on opposing view points. One side obviously didn't believe that hard.
    • • looking4realtruth
        April 9, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Jesus Christ/God: same diff I was not talking about me meeting the apostles or anyone else. I am saying that these were not just people who read the Bible and decided that it was the right and truthful way. These were people who SAW and HEARD Jesus. If the story had been false they would have never died for what they KNEW was a lie. These people who are "waiting for the mothership" and whatnot may BELIEVE that their religion is the right one, but the Apostles would have KNOWN if theirs was the right one. And they never would have died for what the KNEW was a lie. There's a difference between dying for a belief and dying for a fact.
      • • 
          Weydon
          April 11, 2006
          Edit | Reply
          "Jesus Christ/God: same diff " No. Jesus was an existing person. Nearly indisputable fact. Him being GOD on the other hand is even harder to get people believe as believing in just plain old God. There is PROOF for neither. "These people who are “waiting for the mothership” and whatnot may BELIEVE that their religion is the right one, but the Apostles would have KNOWN if theirs was the right one." How can you possibly show the difference? "There’s a difference between dying for a belief and dying for a fact." What is that difference?
  • Trees leave
    April 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    ...how did existence come from nothing...I suppose that's a logical argument...but then again, how did god come from nothing and create existence hmm?
  • • 
      Weydon
      April 11, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      True, but I figure the only thing that can exist before exitence is something that doesn't obey our laws of physics or possibly even logic. Is this supernatural entity God? I think so, at least in some form or another. I'm probably leaning towards the idea of a sentient God that involves himself in our worlds because of upbringing (which I have largely denied actually), but I think even if I was raised an athiest I would have to come to the conclusion that some sort of extra-reality thing must have started our own reality with it's laws, and whatever it may be it must be this "God" thing people are always fighting about.
  • Trees leave
    April 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    hahaha! "Tell the Apostles that Jesus Christ was a ‘fictional character’." wow, I don't know if you have even skimmed the bible or not, but it states quite clearly that JEsus is only God's son and has human faults and mistakes. No one said Jesus Christ was fake, they said God was. Now, I know this may be a hard concept to grasp but, imagine if Jesus Christ and the bible were not connected and yet, JEsus still existed way back when.He is a human, we have records of his existence butthe fact that he was alive does not mean he was the son of god. And also, would the apostles have died for a lie? Yes, I believe there is a very large chance that they would have, I mean, look at you, you live and die in the name of a religion that could verywell be a lie, no matter how hard you implant your trust and belief in it. I coiuld say that Egyptians died and suffered for the religion they believed in, and so did the Aztecs, and Greeks, and Romans, but we who live today believe that none of their religions are true, and later in the future the same mayy be thought about Christianity. So the apostles may have suffered and died for a lie. ALsp you say that they all saw it firsthand so they have to believe and yet, almost all those who followed Jesus were Jewish, in fact, Jesus was Jewish, now could you remind me about what the jews think of Jesus?
  • • looking4realtruth
      April 10, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      Ummm, i don't think so. If YOU read the Bible you would see that it says that Jesus was sinless. God can't sin. He never had a fault or made a single mistake. My point with the Apostles that I am trying to make is that they SAW EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. They KNEW if it was a lie or not. WE DON'T. If they had known it was a lie they would not have died excruciating deaths and let their families be tortured and murdered for it. They didn't have to believe. They saw and they knew. That's why they're powerful proof.
    • • Trees leave
        April 11, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        THey say that the apostles saw and knew it, but WE didn't see it, if your gonna use that excuse I'll go ahead and point out that if we didn't see and know they existed then they may have not existed, te apostles are just another part of the bible that is being argued over. SO they have just as mucha chance of not existing as God. Not only that, but here you are saying that jesus is god, now I know that you might have a good lot of pride n your religion, but most of the bible states very thoroughly that Jesus is NOT God. Three quarters of the text of the gospels and epistles say that Jesus possesses finite human qualities incompatible with those of a God. "Jesus repeatedly denied he was divine. His immediate followers did not see him as a god. Any being not possessing the essential attributes of a self-existing god and Creator, infinitude, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence or possessing any characteristic incompatible with any one of these attributes, cannot be a god but must be a finite being. The evangelists give him qualities which we recognize as human not divine. The evangelists report various actions in his life which are irreconcilable with his being a god. Jesus's birth was human. He was of flesh and blood, like human beings. He hungered, like human beings. He became thirsty (Jn 19:28), like human beings. He often slept, like human beings. He sometimes became weary, like human beings. (Jn 4:6) He was occasionally tempted, like human beings. (Mt 4:1.) His soul became exceeding sorrowful (Mt 26:38), like human beings. He wept, like human beings. (Jn 11:35) He was originally imperfect so could not have been a god, but made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:10). He increased in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) showing he was finite and changeable. He finally died and was buried, like all human beings. Most religous people would attempt to say that this is because he is a human "and" God but if this is true, then hey, he's not God is he? "How can a being be entirely human and entirely divine at the same time? How can Jesus be both God and man? If Jesus was able to act like a god, say by doing miracles, then he was not a man. This is fundamental because if Jesus was not a man then he did not suffer as a man, and the whole theory of atonement collapses. If he was a man then the miracles cannot have been true and could not have offered proof of his divinity. Jesus was God—so he was not man. Jesus was man—so he was not God. How can a God who is infinite exist in a form that is finite—man? Even the Christians cannot reply. " There is no god else beside me, a just god and a saviour; there is none beside me (Isaiah 45:21). Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me (Hosea 13:4). These clearly state that no man can be a god, and if you read anything above, you'd see that Jesus is indeed but a man. Not only that, but Jesus made Many a mistake The mother also testifies against the son. After a long search, Mary found her son Jesus in the temple, disputing with the doctors, and reproved him for staying from home without the consent of his parents, declaring: thy father and I sought thee, sorrowing (Luke 2:48). Anyway, do you still think that JEsus was sinless? Or God?
      • • looking4realtruth
          April 11, 2006
          Edit | Reply
          Whose the “they” that “say that the apostles saw and knew it”? As far as I know the Apostles WROTE the New Testament. They are saying that they themselves saw it. Not that they saw someone who saw someone who heard about it from this guy…. Also, the whole Catholic church is based on the fact that Peter existed. We have factual evidence that Jesus and the Apostles were real people and of events described in the Bible. Excuse me? “most of the bible states very thoroughly that Jesus is NOT God”? Exactly what parts are you talking about? Give me verses. King James please. “His immediate followers did not see him as a god”? Matthew 16:15-17 “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath no revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” These verses confirm that the Apostles believed that Jesus was God and that Jesus said he was God. And just in case you say the Son of God isn’t God: John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Combine that and Matthew 16:17, two verses where Jesus professes to be God, with Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” If Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 had been in conflict with Isaiah 45:21 or Hosea 13:4 then God would not have said this since He knows everything, past, present and future. [“Any being not possessing the essential attributes of a self-existing god and Creator, infinitude, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence or possessing any characteristic incompatible with any one of these attributes, cannot be a god but must be a finite being.”] Says who, you? No. God does not have to conform to our views about what God should be. But since Jesus was the Son of God, he had all these qualities anyways so that’s a moot point. And yes, you are correct. He was 100% human and 100% God. Meaning he suffered like a man and performed miracles like a God. He was the Son of God. He was God in flesh. He was not forced to be punished or to be put on the cross, He chose it. Jesus, God in the flesh, chose to suffer like a man. The suffering was not forced upon Him. And since God has unlimited abilities, suffering is not past His capabilities. But since He was also God he could perform miracles such as: turning water into wine, healing of the lame man, stopping the old woman’s hemorrhage, raising the dead, among other things. Isaiah 45:21 and Hosea 13:4 say nothing about how a man cannot be God. It only says that “there is no other God except me”. Since Jesus is the Son of God, He is part of that “me”. You’ll also see that it was Joseph and Mary who were in the wrong, not Jesus. Luke2:49 “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist (know) ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Joseph and Mary had made an error in judgement, not Jesus. Also, notice how Jesus implies that Joseph is not His father. And yes, I still do believe that Jesus was sinless and so is God, since the vast Biblical evidence does not support you.
        • • Trees leave
            April 11, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            "God does not have to conform to our views about what God should be" says who? You? Not only that, but that was about Jesus not God. Of course though, now your thinking, "But God is Jesus" Well, you asked for proof otherwise, now here is proof otherwise. He denies he is omnipotent by declaring (Jn 5:19): The Son can do nothing of himself. Any omnipotent being needs no help. He denies he is omniscient by declaring (Mt 24:36.) his ignorance of the day of judgement, the most important event in the world's history: Of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only. Any omniscient being must possess all knowledge. He denies he is omniscient by declaring: I am glad for your sakes I was not there, meaning at the grave of Lazarus. Any omnipresent being was there. He denies he has any independent existence by declaring (Jn 6:57): I live by the Father. A being who lives by another cannot be independent. He denies he has God's goodness by declaring (Mk 10:18): Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. He rejects divine honours, reserving them for God alone. I honour my Father (Jn 8:49) and I receive not honour from men (Jn 5:41). He advocated (Jn 4:21), for true believers, worship of the Father not himself: The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. He yielded (Mt 6:13) supreme dominion to the Father: Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. He admitted (Jn 7:16) he taught only under authority of the Father and that he came because he had been sent, plainly accepting a lower rank: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. He sought protection (Jn 17:15) for his followers from the father: I pray that thou shouldst keep them from the evil. No god would be unable to defend his own followers. He repeatedly acknowledged his dependence on the Father: I can do nothing of myself; I came to do the will of him that sent me; The Father that dwelleth within me, he doeth the work. A god within a god is an old Pagan doctrine. Literally hundreds of quotations make the Son inferior to the Father, as the Son knoweth not, but the Father does (Mk 8:32), My Father is greater than I; The Son can do nothing of himself (Jn 5:19). No rational person can conclude other than that the church later elevated the dying and resurrected god to the level of the Absolute. He declared (Jn 6:45) that even spiritual communion was the work of the Father. He acknowledged himself controlled (Jn 5:30) by the Father. He acknowledged (Heb 16:5) that even his body was the work of his Father; in other words, that he was dependent on his Father for his physical life. He called the Father the only true god (Jn 17:3) but calls him my Father and my God. (Jn 20:17). Believe all that you like about the ability of a god to descend from the infinite to the finite, but will it then speak to itself as if it, itself, was a different being? This language shows that Jesus laid no claim to being God, and indeed that, even if he was a supernatural being, he recognised quite certainly that God was the supreme god and not a disembodied aspect of himself.. He uniformly directed his disciples to pray, not to him, but the Father (Mt 6:6). He even acknowledged John the Baptist to be greater than he (Mt. 11:11). Can almighty God even in the disguise of a man honestly say that to another mere man? The disciples testify against the son. Philip addressed Nathanael, saying (Jn 1:45): We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. So, Jesus was the son of Joseph, Philip the disciple says it clearly and the beloved disciple reports it clearly. His disciples never speak of him as a god but as a man, carefully distinguishing him from God: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5); and Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God (Acts 2:23). Can anyone properly call God, even in disguise, a man approved of God? In Acts 17:3 we find: By that man whom he (the Father) hath ordained. Was God the Father ordaining himself? Did he feel silly doing it? Paul (1 Cor. 4:8) excluded Jesus from the Godhead: unto us there is but one God—the Father. He does not say: There is but one God, the father, the son and the Holy Ghost! If John's declaration (Jn 4:12) be true, that no man hath seen God at any time, then how could Jesus be God? He was seen by thousands of men, and seen hundreds of times. God the Father is declared to be the One, the Holy One, the only One more than one hundred times, as if purposely to exclude any other being from the Godhead. Many texts have been found which declare, either explicitly or by implication, that God the Father has no equal, thus denying the divine equality of the Son. To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal with, saith the holy One (Isa 11:25). Jesus in the New Testament is called man and Son of man, eighty-four times. He is called God three times, and calls himself the Son of God only once. The Father is spoken of in the relation of God to the Son, as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 3:2). Ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's (1 Cor 11:3). Now, unless Jesus is merely a man, these expressions imply a plurality, indeed a hierarchy, of gods. They are incompatible with the belief that Christianity is monotheistic, Trinity or no Trinity. Many texts make Christ the tool or servant of God. He is the image of God (Heb 1:3), the appointed of God (Heb 3:1), the servant of God (Mt 12:18). All again imply that Christ is inferior to God and just to speak of God being his own servant is quite nonsensical. There are many divine titles applied to the Father which are never used in reference to the Son, as Jehovah, The Most High, God Almighty, The Almighty. Moses, acknowledged to be merely mortal, is called a god twice (Ex 4:16;7:1) showing that merely because the holy book says a being is a god does not mean it is true. In fact Moses is either a famous leader on his way to immortality as a god but stopped en route, or he is an old Pagan god reduced to the level of a mythical man. The divine titles used of Jesus Christ such as Lord, God, saviour, redeemer, intercessor were used before the birth of Christ, but applied to men—the title of Lord is used of noblemen still—some of them are used thus in the bible itself. And Who says that the apostles saw and knew it? The apostles of course, that is the exact they that I am reffering to. If some people did write that part of the bible they were writing it and following the Old testament which is also being argued over and so, once again, the apostles involvement does not enter into this. If Beowulf had been written in the first person would we have assumed it had really happened? While I admit it's true we have evidence of the existence of Jesus and what not. We have no factual evidence that Jesus did anything in the bible. And no, you can't use the bible as evidence because I'm already accusing it.
          • Trees leave
            April 11, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            f
          • Trees leave
            April 12, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            On the face of it the Jesus of the New Testament preaches and adopts many unwise practices. He teaches that no thought is to be taken for the morrow as to food, drink, or clothing—an practice contrary to good health and economic wisdom, unless the objective is to enter the other world as soon as possible, or to justify those determined to be a burden on society. He encouraged the ignorant and cruel method of treating disease as the work of demons to be expelled savagely. He apparently drives unclean spirits at their own request out of a violent lunatic, who spent his life among the tombs, into a herd of 2000 swine, which then ran down a hill into the sea and were drowned. The owner of the herd must have been left destitute and, as Jesus is said to have been chronically poor himself, it seems he offered no compensation. Jesus promised everlasting life to those who believe he was the Son: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Jn 3:16) This alone is a contradiction because God could not have loved all the world if some unbelievers were not to be saved. Jesus frequently referred to heaven as a place above the earth: And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. (Mk 13:26) And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Mk 14:62) Verily, verily, I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man. (Jn 1:51) No one has ever seen any sign of heaven in the clouds or in the sky, though today we have aeroplanes, telescopes and rocket vehicles. Christians today will therefore say this is poetry and that heaven is elsewhere, a transcendental place, in another dimension or simultaneously everywhere, or whatever you are happy to believe. Let us accept they are right, but then God or the son of God was wrong. Jesus often offered as true, stories in which the laws of Nature are gratuitously ignored: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Mt 12:40) Evidently Jesus, who is at least the son of God, according to the Christians, took the scriptural story of Jonah and the whale to be true history. Science denies that anyone could be three days inside a fish and live to tell the tale. But his prophecy was wrong. He was not three nights and three days in the tomb but only two nights and one day, from Friday night to Sunday morning. Jesus's prophecy is not wrong by modern scientific standards but simply by comparing two parts of the same Holy Book. Do his modern day followers who are better educated than most people were when Jesus lived ever think about these mistakes and contradictions? 11. Jesus also accepted as historically true, the tale of Noah's ark: They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:27) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark. (Mt 24:37-38) In ancient times there were severe floods in many places, as archaeologists have shown, but there was never any world wide flood and there is simply not enough water around to flood the earth to the top of mount Ararat. Even if there were, many more mountain tops would not have been submersed and the scriptural story must have been wrong. Jesus was not an all-knowing God or an aspect of one, unless this God is a liar. The truth is that Ararat was the highest mountain that the Old Testament authors knew. 12. Jesus was quite wrong in thinking that the end of the world was imminent. He refers to its urgency in the following quotations: Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mt 4:17) Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Mt 10:23) There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mt 16:28) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come ... Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Mk 9:1) The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. (Mk 1:15) So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. (Mt 24:74-34; Mk 13:29-30; Lk 21:32) The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (Jn 5:28-29) Jesus was certain that the day of judgement was coming soon when he lived in the first century. Two millennia later we are still waiting. This error has got to be the most stupendous of all, yet in the whole of those two thousand years people have continued to believe that Jesus was a god. His own firmest belief in an imminent end of the world was indisputably wrong. Jesus was so concerned about the future life because he thought that life as he knew it was about to end. It did not! He was simply wrong. Why do people think he was perfect? Why do they still think he is coming soon? " As you can see, Jesus made many a mistake, as did the bible
  • Farseer
    April 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I think I'm gonna have to side with this one. I do believe in god while being a person who has always had a love for science. I feel that science and religion back each other up beautifully. Science says that the universe was started with a big bang, which as far as I understand was an immeasurable reaction where inconcievable amounts of energy were condensed to form matter (which as far as we understand is trapped energy). Now what is more logical to say caused it: just dumb luck, or an omnipotent being that could concievably have produced enough energy to start that reaction. Next we have the laws of physics. They are prefect simply put. Things may happen that they don't explain (like the particles that go into the hole you're not looking at, as if they know) but that doesn't mean they are flawed, it means we are flawed in our understanding of them. Now again we have the choice of what to believe: their creation was random when the universe was started, or that there was a perfectforce behind it's creation that desinged this perfect system. The last one I'll look at here (though there are almost infinite ways they work together) is the creation of life. Life was born on this planet, and probably on many others, from apparently no-where. Now granted (as I said above) we don't understand science completely, but I've never come across anything even remotely close to a chemical reaction that could've happened to make a single celled living organism from simple elements and compounds. Now I do believe in evolution, as it is very logical to think that creatures change over generation to better suit their environment, and that everything on this plante has evolved from that very first single celled being that was created in our universe. So again we have a choice: either somewhere in the universe chemicals will naturally come together to create spontaneous life, or their was a greater being guiding the way certain chemicals came together so that life could exist. I don't know about you but from those 3 simple things (as well as many others) I find it difficult to understand why logically minded, intelligent people don't all believe in god, or even if they don't call it god, some guiding force in the universe that has made the wonders we see before us. I find it highly illogical and somewhat immature to think that everything was created by sheer chance.
  • • Trees leave
      April 11, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      The bible says that God only made the Earth, not the universe. Not only that, but if you believe evolution the explain how Adam and Eve were created by god from clay if they were made from apes? ANd about the whole guiding the chemicals so that life could exist thing, once again, God made only the Earth, if we were to find life on other planets, religion would be made completely false. And most scientific equations and discoveries are made by sheer chance, some are even measured by sheer chance. Not only that, but it says God is a divine being, and you ay that he may have made the universe...So then how did he come to be???Sheer Chance???
    • • looking4realtruth
        April 11, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Technically God never "came to be". He just be.
      • • Trees leave
          April 11, 2006
          Edit | Reply
          wow that's pretty convincing, and what does technically mean...are there technicalities in completely literal things now? And that's cute how you just casually ignored the other comment
  • christopheshea
    May 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    BIBLE FIGHT!
  • 
    Weydon
    May 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    HAHAHAHAHA
  • looking4realtruth
    May 20, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You are totally ignoring that whole purpose and context of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. To put it as simply as possible, if Jesus had sinned, then He couldn't have died on the cross for all our sins. And the only way for Him to be sinless was to be God. Because all men (men and women) are born sinful because of Adam and Eve. He could not have been a man AND taken on the sins of the world.
  • • Trees leave
      May 21, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      hehehe, if he took on the sins of the world wouldn't that be sinning? hehehehe logic trap
    • • looking4realtruth
        October 31, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Let me clear that logic trap up: he took on the PUNISHMENT for the sins of the world.
  • Hopeless-Dreamer
    February 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    I agree

    Allthough I gave up the whole christianity thing quite some time ago, I do have my beliefs in a great Divinity. I wholeheartaly agree with the point you are presenting here. But I guess that some people would rather give into believing that there is a "all powerful" supernatural being out there. Rather than spend eons trying to prove it other wise.
  • 
    November 30, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    The thing you state yourself that how can existance come from nothing God existed from a long time means to say from the start and what do you think that everything on earth starts itself or whatever. Do you believe a ship reaching its destiny without a driver, if not then its the whole universe guy how can it work without a creator. A seed gives rise to a tree can you produce an eatable from a little partical that is enveloped beautifully and all.and one more thing that time itself is created for God and He doesn't made it for himself know the start and finish thing. So our brains are little enough to understand the divine and infinite Allah.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: