SW wrote: » Do you believe every god/goddess from every culture exists? If not, what is your reason for not doing so?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » That goes back to my point at least they believed in some sort of a god; and didn't reject his existence. If your read, throughout history and ancient civilisation each had some sort of god or higher creator they worshipped. I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles. But leaving all religion creationism & Darwinism I cant seem to find nor the atheist him self can find a Logical or a rational reason why a god does or should not exists.
J C wrote: » My mouth and my cheek are separate and independent organs!!!:)
J C wrote: » The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.
SW wrote: » that doesn't answer my question. You said that a person needs a good reason to not believe in a god. I asked what are yours for not believing in the majority of gods (presuming you're Christian/Jewish/Muslim). would you like to give your reason(s)?
kingchess wrote: » The same God??Moloch was the same as Yaheh??or Odin?what about the Aztec gods ??the Hindu gods of TODAY?? the countless Gods who have been worshiped thru out history?., The answer is that I believe in ONE LESS GOD than you do,
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I think I answered you already: "I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles." Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then one God, those societies and civilisations believed that some sort of a God exist and gave him names like Zeus, Hades,Mars and Athens. I simply believe that all of those gods they believed in fact just one god.
I don't think that a person needs a good reason not to believe in a god he's free to believe what he want, I simply think that it's a more logical and a rational to believe in a god and I cant see how that should conflicts with your intellect, science may conflict with religion but I cant see how can it conflicts with the concept of god.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I simply believe that instead of having 5 or 6 different gods having control over different aspect of this world one god controls what all these gods together control because it's more logical easier and simpler to believe.
J C wrote: » Good point. I'm sorry if I don't match your high expectations ... but all I can do is present the 'cutting edge' science on the matter at hand. If that's not enough, I can only apologise.
J C wrote: » He did ... but that wasn't the point ... the tree was in full leaf and wasn't bearing any fruit ... even unripened fruit. ... so it was useless as a fig tree (by not providing food for people to eat) ... and it therefore was selected by Jesus to be destroyed.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then zero god(s).
Defender OF Faith wrote: » And why don't you believe in a God? can you give me a good reason why? I understand if you don't believe in religion, but I dont understand how can people reject the belief in god if they dont have a good reason for it
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I think I answered you already: "I think they all worshipped the same God but gave him different names & titles." Because from a logical and a rational point of view it does not make sense for their to be more then one God, those societies and civilisations believed that some sort of a God exist and gave him names like Zeus, Hades,Mars and Athens. I simply believe that all of those gods they believed in fact just one god. I don't think that a person needs a good reason not to believe in a god he's free to believe what he want, I simply think that it's a more logical and a rational to believe in a god and I cant see how that should conflicts with your intellect, science may conflict with religion but I cant see how can it conflicts with the concept of god. Different names that support the same premise, for example Odin and Mars are the same the Norse believed he's the God of war and called him Odin & the Romans believed he's the God of war and called him Mars. I simply believe that instead of having 5 or 6 different gods having control over different aspect of this world one god controls what all these gods together control because it's more logical easier and simpler to believe.
floggg wrote: » For the same reason I don't believe in Sauron - ni matter how well written the book is, there is zero credible objectively verifiable evidence in support of his existence. Pretty reasonable position, no?
SW wrote: » That doesn't make much sense other that as a personal preference for chosen deity. Just saying "I think it's more likely that one, rather than multiple, entity created the universe and humanity".
SW wrote: » And that's before you get past why it makes more sense for their to be a god rather than not. I would disagree. I don't think it's rational to accept the existence of reality creating deity, when we have no evidence to support it. People can believe what they want but that doesn't mean that it's rational.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » FYP. Whats your rational or logical reason there is a god, other then a faith based reason?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » The belief in god doesn't require evidence
housetypeb wrote: » One could say that belief in gods evolved,our early ancestors conjured up gods to explain things they didn't understand,like thunder etc. Over time they invested all the powers from many local gods into one supreme god, doesn't make it true though.
floggg wrote: » Lol. From a rational and logical point of view, a pantheon of gods is just as likely as there being one single God. In fact, a pantheon of gods would at least explain the inconsistency between all the actions, events and emotions attributed to deities. There is little logic in a loving forgiving God who drowns the entire human population in a flood, save for one family who must inbreed to repopulate the earth.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA Edit: To clarify a bit, there is literally no point whatsoever using a logical argument against 'You can't have something from nothing, except when it fits my argument'.
Dan_Solo wrote: » Speak for yourself mate.
Bipolar Joe wrote: » I genuinely do like to have conversations about this stuff, but when your argument is "X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!" I know you're not the droid I'm looking for. The idea that one God is more logical than more than one because more than one would mean he needed help is also a leap in logic. I have more pairs of pants than one. That does not mean my pants need help. We call that one a "Strawman." It got popular there recently.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » ah I think you missed when I said "Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god" an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods. .
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » We're not making a logical argument because you aren't either. Your entire argument falls apart logically when you make claims like 'nothing comes from nothing except when I say it does'. To accuse others of using fallacious arguments when your premise is based on a fallacy is ridiculous.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god. The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence. There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe? a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing. Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god. The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence. There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe? a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing. Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah. When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death. When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men. Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention. We have however two options regarding these individuals #1)They were dishonest people and mad men #2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men" If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one. This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived. It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us. These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe? a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.
Chunners wrote: » Actually it is not irrational at all to believe that something can come from nothing because that whole "Something can't come from nothing" rule only applies within the laws of our own universe but our own universe didn't begin within itself, it started in a space that existed before it began (and still does otherwise what would our universe still be expanding into?) which had/has it's own laws. The laws of physic that we are all subject to are only as old as our universe is (15 billion odd years) and only exist within our own universe bubble. True nothingness (no light, no energy, no mass, no radiation, nothing) does not exist within our universe so we don't know what is possible in the existence of it since it would also not be subject to any laws.
