-
well...I believe in god, but its spelled l.o.v.e.21% Voted for by morrison, slimhauge, Hardhittn63.
I mean, any "all-powerfull, all-knowing" god would have the forsight to NOT make himself known. So many people would have been sparred. Any all-loving god would sentence people to eternal damnation.
So if there is a god, it not you you think It is -
Does it really matter?people seem to think they can find the answer... but if you think about it there is none...14% Voted for by Crazyhead, Molzahn.
if god does exist then it's existance is based on belief and having an absolute answer would undermind existance... and no "loving" god would make people not believe in it and then punish them for being the way they are...
if a perfect, infallable, all-knowing being truely existed, wouldn't we KNOW not THINK?
and if god doesn't exist then that puts alot of people in exestential crisis...
throughout time god(s) have been the same thing... the unexplained...
that is all that god is... god is those imaginary lines we draw from coinsidence to coinsidence in our heads...
god is when we see the shape of a bunny instead of a cloud...
god is when we laugh for no reason...
god is man-made... not the other way around...
without perception there is no god, therefore your god, your neighbors god, your parents god, and everyone elses god, are all different...
if ther is only one god then none of us are going to heaven because if you asked evey person on this planet what god is, and what god means to them, you wouldn't get the same answer twice...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!
-
Adding your comment: -
bravo
well said -
The Bible poses one, definitive God, who we aim to learn of and cast off false perceptions that are not conveyed in His word.
-
So does the Torah (pardon my spelling of religous scripture)
So does the Koran...
who's to say your god, is god? who's to say that the jews and the muslims and the christians dont have different forms of heaven? Hell... who's to say all those forms of heaven exist at once?
Have you been there?
Have you talked to someone who has?
Have you seen pictures?
Have you any concrete evidence that there is a god at all?
no..
no you dont...
you dont KNOW! i dont KNOW! that person over there doesn't KNOW! and eveyone else on the damn planet doesn't KNOW!
so how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the bible is right?
whats the equation for that?
A + B = chair?
the unknown + bible = god?
no! i dont buy it... -
"The Bible poses one, definitive God"
who's version of the bible?
-
-
Try this on for size...God does not exist, because everything that exists is an illusion.14% Voted for by Molzahn, Red Death.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!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Everything that exists may be an illusion, so the dominant premise resulting from this, in the case of one's existence, is the sole attribution of one's will in unison with belief, and the only belief that would suffice to justify reality and purpose, resulting in hope and abandoning doubt (mental destruction), would be God.
-
-
will and belief = direction and magnitude?
so you're taking the angle that the preciever is the only thing that is not an illusion? you should check out the movie "what the bleep do we know - down the rabbit hole"
it takes a scientific approach to convince others of this veiw, while incorperating spirituality. its a good watch, you might find it interesting -
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I think this is hilariously stupid. But a way to make it just plain hilarious (for a nerd like me) would be to rephrase it thus:
Premise 1: God does not exist.
Premise 2: Everything that exists is an illusion.
Therefore: ?
I'll give you a clue...
For something to 'exist' it must not be an 'illusion' so if God does not 'exist' and all that does exist is an 'illusion' then: (insert inevitable, but silly conclusion here) -
-
Wrong
premise 1 - the idea of god is not absolue, therefore the reference is ambigious and so roughly meaningless
premise 2 - everything is relative (nothing exists absolutely)
look up the definition of illusion. it is generally that a persons perceptions are askew of what is real. but what is real, is what we preceive/experience. truths are relative -
-
"truths are relative "
is this statement also relative? or is it a truth? -
-
From my relative perspective, this is true, and therefore is relative overall
-
-
It's self defeating... Silly.
-
-
something that is true to me, is not nessisarily true to you; so the truth relative to my standpoint stands individual to your brand of truth. ergo relative, reguardless of if you believe this relativity or not (assuming you accept that there are other points of veiw of course)
If you could describe how that is self defeating, I'd love to hear back from you
-
-
It's self-defeating because if everything is an illusion, then that means the one making the observation in and of themselves is an illusion. Which means nothing exists. That is how, my friend. And thanks for the intelligent conversation (no sarcasm).
~Asa of the Philosophers of Eviction
-
-
infact, the only way it could be self-defeating is if you were to think you were the only one existing
-
so is religion...
-
-
-
it's relative...
there are some schitzophrenics that believe everything to be fact...
so to them eveything is truth...
there are some that dont believe anything... no truth..
whats true for you might not be true for me and vice-verse..
you might not believe me in saying this, but doesn't that just proove the point?
-
-
-
Paradoxically proven as real, huh
-
-
lol, quirky eh
-
-
-
"and the only belief that would suffice to justify reality and purpose, resulting in hope and abandoning doubt (mental destruction), would be God."
So we should believe that something is true with absolute conviction even though we have no evidence for it just because it is beneficial to us. This really isn't any proof for God at all, it's just a way of saying "wow, wouldn't life be so much more understandable if God actually did exist". We can't infer anything from something like this about the actual existence or nonexistence of God. -
-
We have justification through revelation, a system of meta-empirical sensory data (or higher even, I would posit). Yet no, there is no such thing as knowledge. Knowledge is a concept seemingly not attainable to the mental mind. So, the only option to attain knowledge, seemedly? Seek out one who holds knowledge (transcendent of the mental) and conceptually, this would be God.
-
-
Conceptually, yes. This still doesn't imply anything about whether God actually does exist or not... we have two possible scenarios, that humans cannot know anything but divine beings exist that can, or that human cannot know anything and neither can anything else. We cannot use the fact that the mind cannot attain true knowledge to infer that there is something that can attain true knowledge... it is equally as plausible that true knowledge is completely non-existent. Without other premises, we cannot establish which state of affairs is the correct one (i.e. whether knowledge exists but is unattainable to all but God, or whether knowledge simply does not exist).
-
-
Yes, but belief is about 'choosing' to go with the former.
-
-
i cant say i agree here tech...
i contest that knowledge is not so much an unattainable concept a fallible perception...
when the sun rises i KNOW the sun is rising... does that mean it is rising everywhere... no it means that where i am, meantally, physically, metephorically, and literally, the sun is beginning to come into veiw...
one may argue that the sun may or may not exist, but to me it does. -
-
But it may be simply summation of the seemed, as in, it seems that it seems, but still, it is not really. Can we conclude that at least SOMETHING is happening? It would seem we can, as all convictions would lead us to assume so. Yet, this conviction that something must be happening whatever it is, is not a knowable conviction. It comes from a supposed chemical or some force unknown that may be leading us to think that there is no other alternative but that whatever is experienced must be an example of something tangible, yet it may be nothing at all. This is a very hard concept to explain, but it comes down to the fact that we cannot seemingly, knowingly support our convictions that this has to be so, and thus, it is possible that the illusion doesn't even exist even if seemingly experienced. Thus, I believe Descartes was partly wrong in his summation, and nothing can be concluded on the existence of the self. Solipistic nihilism encompasses the belief that possibly a force exists but you are not apart of it, and do not exist knowingly.
-
-
but what is more important in the concept of knowledge...
the reality of it, which is both unproovable, and purely perception-based?
or the relevant truth-to-self, which while still perception-based, is alot more concrete?
my veiw is that personal truth is much more impotant, and it is also much easier to deal with...
religion is really only for those who try to process a group truth (which is impossible) and as all groups must have a leader they invent something infallible, since to truely apply a group truth all involver must be infallible...
religion is a way to make one feel as though they are "right," and have a group of people there to pat them on the back for it...
nihilism, protaganism, and the complete diregaurd for organized thought are for people who dont need a pat on the back to feel "right".
---
belief is not about "coosing that latter," so much as it is about needing acceptance..
-
-
"or the relevant truth-to-self, which while still perception-based, is alot more concrete?"
Is it? Or this this just another imposed, perceptual conviction?
"my veiw is that personal truth is much more impotant, and it is also much easier to deal with..."
a flux controlled by a force unknown. You believe what your mind tells you and that's that. One minute you might be rallying for peace, the next, killing babies. A 'crazyhead', per se.
"nihilism, protaganism, and the complete diregaurd for organized thought are for people who dont need a pat on the back to feel "right"."
Really. Are you advocating nihilism or did I misread?
"belief is not about "coosing that latter," so much as it is about needing acceptance.."
And you cannot see the existential imperative in such a comment. In light of the unknowing and the whole personal belief thing (you just believe it because that's what the brain brings forth as most easily accepting), then the pat on the back becomes a sanitizer and an empowerment. It is the more appeasing option, either way. There is either a right choice, or there is a beneficial choice. Christianity entails both, and belief is the only choice.
-
-
"a flux controlled by a force unknown. You believe what your mind tells you and that's that. One minute you might be rallying for peace, the next, killing babies. A 'crazyhead', per se."
funny... as I recall, two factions of Christians in Ireland (who supposedly abide by the ten commandments) had warred for ages (murdering et cetera)
""nihilism, protaganism, and the complete diregaurd for organized thought are for people who dont need a pat on the back to feel "right"."
Really. Are you advocating nihilism or did I misread?"
nihilists tend to take the position of "all knowledge is false".. but that is accepted as knowledge (contradictory knowledge), in fact, I think nihilism is the uncertain investment of belief (where different parts of our psyche believe different things, and settles the overall discontinuity by an unnerving uncertainty). Its more cognitive chaos than a certain line of thought -
"Is it? Or this this just another imposed, perceptual conviction?"
that depends on HOW you percieve it, i suppose...
"a flux controlled by a force unknown. You believe what your mind tells you and that's that. One minute you might be rallying for peace, the next, killing babies. A 'crazyhead', per se."
i dont really see how absence of faith in the unknow automatically excludes me from having morals... just because i dont believe in saome invisible, infallible father-figure doesn't mean that i'm just going to randomly kill something (just to point it out, most serial killers are christian)
"Really. Are you advocating nihilism or did I misread?"
What is wrong whith nihilism?
i think you have a misjudgement of the nihilistic philosophy...
1. nothing exists
2. if something did exist we could not know about it
3. if something existed and we knew about it we could not prove to others that it exists
that is TRUE nihilism (and i can use the word TRUE confidently since this is the actual belief system of Gorgius aka the nihilist, the creator of nihilistic thought)
you, yourself have stated "I believe Descartes was partly wrong in his summation, and nothing can be concluded on the existence of the self" a VERY nihilist point of veiw...
dont group together true nihilism with emo teenages that think "nothing exists, so whats the point"...
"And you cannot see the existential imperative in such a comment. In light of the unknowing and the whole personal belief thing (you just believe it because that's what the brain brings forth as most easily accepting), then the pat on the back becomes a sanitizer and an empowerment. It is the more appeasing option, either way. There is either a right choice, or there is a beneficial choice. Christianity entails both, and belief is the only choice."
i believe not because it is easy, admitting fault and unknowing is hard to do, i believe what i believe because i realize that there is no way of KNOWING, there is no one answer, nor one question...
beleif is not the only choice, especially not christianity...
there is no ONLY choice, you can choose whatever you mind can handle, i choose to believe that nothing ever has, or ever will, know, for sure, anything... i accept and embrace that idea... i will live my perceived life to it's perceived fullest, being, perceptively, the best i can, chips falling where they are perceived...
screw reality, i live where i perceive i live... whats the point of living based on a faulty notion of reality when you can simply accept the world as you percieve it and live in your perception?
-
-
"screw reality, i live where i perceive i live...whats the point of living based on a faulty notion of reality when you can simply accept the world as you percieve it and live in your perception?"
some people find more colourful extrapolations of their perceptions to interpret as reality. It is the interpretation of one's environment which leads to the concept of what truly is,, people like you and I see to the raw 'truth' of the matter: that all that is certain and logically constant is perception exclusively; beyond that is the vividly dancing imagination of our cognition.
but does that ultimately invalidate 'truth' of any other form? far from. Our connection to existence may be met from the faulty and fallible order of perception, but how we deal with this input makes the difference. Some seek alignment and social polarity, through functions like religion; some seek to stand alone as a singularity.
We are the puppets to ideas. We are slave to our rational thoughts, and our faulty (yet seemingly flawless) connection to what must be. - To weigh ALL for its full worth, we must see past this system, see that through our logic-slaved eyes, anything beyond the purely coherent and verifiable realm is invisible. logic thus does not acknowledge existence of any irrational item (for such things do not exist in the universe of logic). Does this deny such elements from being? not necessarily.
Imagine a television screen, now image television static that held no traceable/rational pattern. Something so purely chaotic, where-as each blip of black and white, was not necessarily one or the other (if at all). Our brain would still register an abridged order of happenings (it would be incorporate this into a logical pattern, where-as it is not necessarily patterned to begin with). To our mind, does true chaos exist? not according to what is verifiable. -
-
i'm not saying my veiw is not flawed... in fact... i'm pretty damn sure it is...
but since i have no concievable chance of truely comprehending all that is, i figure that i might as well just take care of what i'm doing and not so much worry about the who, why, when, and where of life...
-
-
I agree with you, I was just playing devil's advocate. In fact I live my life on very similar guidelines. "do what seems right to you, then push the fact that you can't be wrong"
-
-
well, i figured as much considering that you have agreed with me up till this point...
-
-
-
-
-
-
you and I are thinking on the same wavelength
"religion is really only for those who try to process a group truth (which is impossible) and as all groups must have a leader they invent something infallible, since to truely apply a group truth all involver must be infallible..."
that would be to say in other words, an absolute idea, must be held identically in the hearts of its bearers, without varying degrees of understanding (thus impossible!)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Say, God does exist...
You have to be a gambler to love him. Most people are if you see how many people frequent and wager their hard-earned money at Las Vegas and other casinos. People with low mentality love to gamble. That is a sure bet to judging one's intelligence: if they like to gamble, they are of lower human form.
We need people like that. Las Vegas is thriving on people's addiction to CHANCE.
GOD IS CHANCE.
Little people believe in chance. They can pray one thousand times without their prayers being answered but the 1001 time, their prayer becomes true! OMG, there is a God!!!
What if you flushed your toilet 100 times and nothing happened? But the 101th time it flushed? Would you wait for God to fix your shit? Not if you are sane. You'd call a plumber, right? The plumber can fix your toilet trouble right away. God may never fix it. But, then again, by some miracle it might start flushing next year. But in the mean time, there's shit all over your house.
God does exist. GOD IS CHANCE. You can wait for Him to take his sweet ass time to fix something or you can call MAN to fix right away.
GOD IS A SUCKER'S BET.
THE WORLD NEEDS SUCKERS SO OTHERS CAN PROFIT FROM THEIR IGNORANCE.
-
-
hmm
so you're taking the pathological approach to it
-
-
If everything is not real, but an illusion, then what are illusions, but real?
-
lol,hilarious examples Brew.
-
Really? Everything is illusion...Then is you'r hand really a foot? Or a breast? or chicken? I'm hungry. I think I'll eat you'r hand.
PS- I don't beleive in god either but EVERYTHING dosen't exist....thats just bull. -
yep
I was using 'illusion' more as an euphemism for relative. I find that people get confused if I say relative right off the top though, lol -
Actually, that would have cleared things up a bit more.
-
He exists
God does exist. God exists and my proof is beyond words. -
-
then using words to prove Him is nonsensical. to the point of even the word reference "God" would have to be only a direction which to guide our thoughts, and never a final destination
-
-
"There are no absolutes." Are you absolutely sure?
-
-
is that an absolute question?
-
-
Absolutely
-
-
can you describe this "absolute" for me?
-
-
which absolute are you referring to?
-
-
tell me what the word can refer to
-
clearly any absolute you can describe, would be relative to the description
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh yeah, I've updated.
P1: All that exists is an illusion
P2: All that is an illusion is that which exists.
P3: God exists.
Therefore: God is not an illusion.
I tell you, logic is weird and in some cases incoherent...language is a sticky web.
See, what I did before was to deny the antecedent.
I said that
All that exists is an illusion.
God does not exist.
Therefore, God is not an illusion.
But, of course, in this formulation there is nothing to say that other things apart from those that exist could also be illusions....anyway, it's not important.
K. F. -
attitude works on the basis of polarity. if i expose you to a certain idea long enough, in a proficient manner, your attitude will adjust to the stimuli.
in short, how do i know that you are not absolutely sure? because you as a human will change your mind throughout your lifetime. -
If everything that exists is an illution, then this post is not here , it is a figment of my imagination, and I , am all that exists, being aware of my consciousness
-
-
who is to say basic functions, such as growing crops, are not artistic in themselves?
-
-
to quote the matrix:
"Morpheus: What is "real"? How do you define "real"? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain..." -
-
true
-
-
-
Believing God does not exist is naive and ignorant“…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?, p. 15)14% Voted for by Carpool, inksplatterskitty.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!
-
Adding your comment:
-
believing you cannot be wrong is naive and ignorant
-
-
there is proof everywhere of God's existence. You just have to look for it. I will be glad to send you some links if you want.
-
-
proof is subjective, you cannot be absolutely sure of its validity
-
-
How can you be so sure that I can't be absolutely sure of validity?
-
-
a comment to your analogy
the production of a book from an explosion is ridiculous, true.
but hypothetically, the laws of physics etc, could be ephemeral by nature (something that can never be proven at any point in time). who is to say that at the beginning of time, the overall interaction of 'things' resticts the formation of bizarre induplicable phenomena? or that the no new dimensions of physical interactivity could form? (and by that I mean, life).
as far as we understand, life cannot be reproduced except via other life (biotic patterns writting its design/reformating abiotic patterns). But does that mean that life had no abiotic origin?
given an unlimited period of time, do not the laws of probability tell us that everything possible will happen? (not that i put much weight in probability)
---
anyway, throw some of your argument my way, i'd love to hear about your proofs -
-
This is how I roll
MY analogy? I cited a source, silly! The law of conservation of energy states that energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, ONLY ALTERED. Which means that ALL energy that exists today existed in the beginning of our universe. Where did all of this energy come from? What was it's earliest form?? Even if you were to think that it had always been there, then you would have to come to the conclusion that we could have been created at LITERALLY ANY POINT IN THE PAST, which obviously is not true. Also, everything conceivable has had a beginning and will have an end, including, according to physics, our universe. So please tell me how you think we got here in the first place. A creation must have a Creator. It is impossible for energy to just come into existence by itself.
Ok, enough physics, how 'bout some faith:
this may be a new word for you, but have you heard of miracles? Not just people's stories, but real, scientifically unexplainable mirales? How about you search for the Bleeding Eucharist or Padre Pio, who was at one point the most photographed person on earth. He had the first VISIBLE STIGMATA which lasted over 50 years. It was also CONSTANTLY BLEEDING. He lost so much blood and ate so little that he shouldn't have survived, let alone for over 50 years. Please take the time to look this up. You will be surprised what God does for us to try and make us believe. But, you seem like the kind of person who could see God in person and still not believe.
-
-
"MY analogy? I cited a source, silly! The law of conservation of energy states that energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, ONLY ALTERED."
Again, as I said before, it would be impossible to prove/disprove how constant a law really is. (and there are laws which have been broken despite the scientific communities confidence in them, consider einsteins law of relativity. neutrinos and tacheons contridict that).
everything is theoretical; and every idea, given time, will change. The law of conservation could very well be erronous. But as it sits right now, it is the best fitting explanation.
People once thought the world was flat, then we thought it was round, now we interpret it to be intricately dimensioned. -
simply put..
laws are bona fide theories, where-as my thoughts remain as conjecture
-
-
-
is it just me, or are ou
-
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
| |
| |
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!
March 21, 2007
Edit | Reply
Also, that didn't even make sense.
March 21, 2007
Edit | Reply
March 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
Xelgaroth
March 28, 2007
Yes
God exists, and the so-called "intellectuals" and "enlightened ones" who do not believe that he/she/it exists are off the bat defeating their own arguements.Okay, to go with Brew Kline's aregument that God is chance. Really? What is chance, but a series of events that have no PERCEIVABLE pattern? What would have happened if by chance every one of my one hundred flushes worked? What then? I have no way of knowing it was chance, so I assume God. Am I incorrect? How so? To say that I was wrong to think God after one hundred continuous sucesses would be like saying the boat will sink after the one hundredth time I go out. Do I prove God by saying this? Absolutely not. I just think there are holes in atheistic logic.
The argument that abandoning doubt and going on Faith is somehow mental "destruction" is also flawed. I look at a chair and I wish to sit on it. I can see that it doesn't have any unreasonably uncomfortable lumps, that its structure is sound, that the wood isn't rotting, but I still have to take that blind leap of faith when I sit in it that it won' fall apart once I sit down. The knowledge of the aforementioned state of the chair is helpful to my judgement to a degree but all the same one MUST make blind leaps of faith in order to discover. Again, do I prove God? Of course not. Once again I'm just saying there are flaws in atheistic logic.
Now on to the question of God's existence or not. Okay, take a look WAY back, at all the planets and stars and billions of galaxies, nebula, gas clouds, supernovae, space, time, all of it together. Something caused it. Why? Because science has proven that the universe had a beginning. That which has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. What caused it? Parallel universes bumping together (the current popular atheist arguement)? That's like detonating a bomb in a printing press and coming out with an exact copy of The New York Times from July 24, 1982. Even if everything is motivated by chance, SOMETHING motivates the chance. SOMETHING directs it. Even if chance itself directs the chance, then there IS therefore a direction, a reason, to the universe. Whether or not this direction is an intelligent deity is irrelevant, the mere arguement that there is any direction or not is here. Also, when any and all sentient, conscious life in the universe is gone from the universe, does the universe cease to exist? Does reality require a perceiver? Or would there be an empty, meaningless void of nothingness spinning of into hopeless infinity? All that exists CANNOT exist without cause and perception, and therefore must be caused by a knowing, conscious being. Therefore, that chance directs chance is no longer in question. Reason directs chance. That reason directs chance opens up the possibilities to an intelligent designer.
Look on a smaller scale. DNA. Human DNA is some of the most complex material in known existence. It uses a system of four characters. Even modern computers only use two characters! To alter any ONE of those millions of characters in one's genetic code would completely offset the human genome, and your humanity would cease. To elaborate on the sheer scale of complexity, one could fill a room with millions of monkies sitting in front of keyboards, all typing madly at random letters and for one of them to randomly type out the declaration of independence. The complexity is far beyond anything chance could develop.
Yet another example. The Cambrian Explosion. Recent evidence has found that Darwin was incorrect in his tree-of-life diagram. Geological evidence has found that life did not gradually blossom out of one sponge-like creature in the ocean, but rather that they simply appeared. To explain the suddenness with which they appeared to be, imagine waking up one day and being the only one alive. In the last two minutes of the day, the entire planet is filled with life. It wasn't there, and then it was. The Cambrian Explosion of life. Now obviously other species of the same type of animal branched off in slight variations from their original form since then but they are all seperate from each other in their origins, rather than having one common ancestor as Darwin predicted. He himself said that if there was no common ancestor "my theory would absolutely break down."
I believe that God exists because in the entire scale of all that is and all that isn't and all that could be, there is a direction. It must have a cause. Why? Because randomness, even in its purest form, is in itself a cause, a direction. ("and so we are masses wrought from chaos, forged by the smiths of the cosmos?")
Molzahn
December 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
perhaps consciousness gives it direct?
Molzahn
December 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
we logically cannot interpret/understand/conceive true chaos. therefore it can and must exist beyond our perceptions QED.
Molzahn
December 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
"
given an unlimited amount of time, the laws of probability would say otherwise
Molzahn
December 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
actually, from a psychological perspective, chance is preceived to be either on your side or not. consider the idea that armies would pray to their god (chance) for victory. the idea of chance being tangible (god) is appealing to our desire for control.
"All that exists CANNOT exist without cause and perception, and therefore must be caused by a knowing, conscious being."
I would think that existance is possible without perception... with your thought in mind, imagine meditation - how you let go of your perceptions and go into trance to reveal what would otherwise be untouchable. Whether it be a wiccan, a buddist, a clairvoyant, this heightened sense of reality brings the greater-design in focus. If you were to create a personification of this transcendence, you would call it god, no doubt. from a christian perspective, do you acknowledge the idea that this is to be in communion with or to become 'God'? If yes, understandably, everyone has an intinsic connection to this, and so the argument of whether god exists or not is trivial semantics.
Crazyhead
December 14, 2007
Edit | Reply
So does the Koran...
who's to say your god, is god? who's to say that the jews and the muslims and the christians dont have different forms of heaven? Hell... who's to say all those forms of heaven exist at once?
Have you been there?
Have you talked to someone who has?
Have you seen pictures?
Have you any concrete evidence that there is a god at all?
no..
no you dont...
you dont KNOW! i dont KNOW! that person over there doesn't KNOW! and eveyone else on the damn planet doesn't KNOW!
so how can you possibly come to the conclusion that the bible is right?
whats the equation for that?
A + B = chair?
the unknown + bible = god?
no! i dont buy it...
Molzahn
December 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
bastard gremlins
I hate these misdirected postsMolzahn
December 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
Molzahn
December 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
true, but..
if all I know is theory, than everything is ambiguous..Molzahn
December 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
true, but..
if all I know is theory, than everything is ambiguous..Molzahn
February 1
Edit | Reply
Molzahn
February 1
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free