This is all the proof I need that there is a God....





[image]http://www.gnepse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Jessica-Alba-Pictures-[/image]

he's as real as pam anderson's tits or paris hilton's talent.

wkfan;643677 wrote:Jesus was born in December. Christmas is the celebration of Jesus's birth.

Easter is the celebration of His death and, more importantly, His Resurection.

Well, to be honest, even though we celebrate in December, Jesus was NOT born in December.

tcarrier32;643784 wrote: i also think its funny that the day Jesus rose from the dead (lol, magic) depends on what year it is.

Then you don't understand the difference between our calender and the Jewish calendar.

j_crazy;645160 wrote:he's as real as pam anderson's tits or paris hilton's talent.

Both those exist.

Pam's girls are just burried under silicone, and Paris' talent for dome is impressive, from what I'm told.

Do animals have souls?!?

Skyhook79;645098 wrote:"Life is real, if I shoot you in the face you are going to die. I mean there is no in betweens when it comes to that"


There are numerous stories of that happening and the person survives. Most recently The Arizona Congresswomen.
In all cases it's all part of God's ultimate plan, you can choose to believe that or not.

Are you suggesting god intervenes to perform a miracle? It would seem this, and god having a "plan" for us kind of contradicts the idea of free will.

BORIStheCrusher;645226 wrote:Are you suggesting god intervenes to perform a miracle? It would seem this, and god having a "plan" for us kind of contradicts the idea of free will.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier posts!

CenterBHSFan;645207 wrote:Do animals have souls?!?

This is a great question. Typically, it is answered depending on whether or not someone believes in the dichotomy of an individual versus fewer or more parts of a sentient being.

I am of the persuasion that every sentient being (anything which is able to "think," really) is a dichotomy ... that is, that it is comprised of two elements: the physical, and the non-physical (the physical being a sort of "housing" and instrument for the non-physical ... the brain in particular). As such, I personally do think animals have a kind of soul to them.

I think this postulate is theoretically pretty well-put-together (long before you and I were around). It theorizes that the brain is the physical tool used by the mind to interact with the body. If the brain becomes damaged, that creates a problem with the tool the mind uses to engage the physical world.

In theory, then, someone with a brain injury or defect can still have a mind that is fully functional, but that doesn't have a brain adequate to communicate with the physical world around it.

Think about it like this. Suppose everyone's mind is Tiger Woods' golfing talent, and that the brain is the set of clubs everyone is given with which to play golf. Some people get the top-of-the-line club sets (wish I knew more about golf, so I could slap a brand on this analogy). Other people get the Little Tykes plastic set for children ages 3-5. Nobody is capable of swapping clubs, upgrading clubs, etc.

Two people of equal talent will interact with a golf course VERY differently because of the tools they have with which to do so.

All that to say, I personally think animals do have souls ... temporary souls, but souls nonetheless.

O-Trap;645239 wrote:This is a great question. Typically, it is answered depending on whether or not someone believes in the dichotomy of an individual versus fewer or more parts of a sentient being.

I am of the persuasion that every sentient being (anything which is able to "think," really) is a dichotomy ... that is, that it is comprised of two elements: the physical, and the non-physical (the physical being a sort of "housing" and instrument for the non-physical ... the brain in particular). As such, I personally do think animals have a kind of soul to them.

I think this postulate is theoretically pretty well-put-together (long before you and I were around). It theorizes that the brain is the physical tool used by the mind to interact with the body. If the brain becomes damaged, that creates a problem with the tool the mind uses to engage the physical world.

In theory, then, someone with a brain injury or defect can still have a mind that is fully functional, but that doesn't have a brain adequate to communicate with the physical world around it.

Think about it like this. Suppose everyone's mind is Tiger Woods' golfing talent, and that the brain is the set of clubs everyone is given with which to play golf. Some people get the top-of-the-line club sets (wish I knew more about golf, so I could slap a brand on this analogy). Other people get the Little Tykes plastic set for children ages 3-5. Nobody is capable of swapping clubs, upgrading clubs, etc.

Two people of equal talent will interact with a golf course VERY differently because of the tools they have with which to do so.

All that to say, I personally think animals do have souls ... temporary souls, but souls nonetheless.

Sorry, I honestly had nothing better to say.

BORIStheCrusher;645226 wrote:Are you suggesting god intervenes to perform a miracle? It would seem this, and god having a "plan" for us kind of contradicts the idea of free will.

Oddly, while I do think God has a plan for us, I think he almost never intervenes in his own creation to make such frequent exception to the natural law he put into place. I do think that he may prod a person to take a certain action, but despite the fact that I think he has the ability to supercede any free will we have (or "think we have," as the case may be), I don't think he DOES supercede our free will much. I'd even be willing to venture that there have been less than 100 true "miracles" (exceptions to the natural order of the universe) throughout the history of mankind, and I would include God making up someone's mind for them as a miracle.

I would be interested in hearing a defense made for any kind of free will existing without any sort of nonphysical element to the universe as well (from the scientific naturalism point of view), though. As of now, I've yet to hear one, so I typically don't get too caught up in debating the freewill/predeterminism discussion with non-theists, as I think it is moot.

BORIStheCrusher;645226 wrote:Are you suggesting god intervenes to perform a miracle? It would seem this, and god having a "plan" for us kind of contradicts the idea of free will.

There is a story of a youth minister whose wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. During one of her exams the dr told them that there was a problem. the baby was going to be born with a heart defect, essentially a hole in the heart that only several surgeries could repair and it was a longshot at best, 2% chance of survival after 4 days of birth. The dr suggested that they have an abortion based on his assumptions that the couple would be bankrupt from the surgeries, strain on their marriage and the child's quality of life. The father was faced with a freewill choice of what direction to take. He chose to lean on his faith and trust God and the Child was born. The child is now 10 years old and travels to different places with his father and shares his story with other troubled and sick kids. I can only imagine the impact that is having on not only the other kids lives but other Adults faced with similiar choices.


Another more familiar story is that of John Walsh of his show "America's Most Wanted'. Most of us are familar with the kidnapping and murder of his son Adam. Mr Waslh was faced with his freewill choice of living in self pity and hate for life (who could blame him right?) or doing something positive in his son's memory. His show and his actions has been responsible for valueable legislation and the capturing of 1000's of fugitives.

There are countless other similiar stories. I chose these 2 because good came from the life of a person and good came from the death of the person.
Does John Walsh wish he had his son, absolutely. My point is God can use any and every situation even if a person makes a bad freewill choice (someone killing Adam walsh) or a good freewill choice (The Youth minister and John Walsh) some outcomes take longer than others,its all in God's timing not ours. that is my belief and my freewill choice and it is why i have the faith that i do. Everyone has the freewill choice to believe or not. But God is control.

Skyhook79;645493 wrote:There is a story of a youth minister whose wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. During one of her exams the dr told them that there was a problem. the baby was going to be born with a heart defect, essentially a hole in the heart that only several surgeries could repair and it was a longshot at best, 2% chance of survival after 4 days of birth. The dr suggested that they have an abortion based on his assumptions that the couple would be bankrupt from the surgeries, strain on their marriage and the child's quality of life. The father was faced with a freewill choice of what direction to take. He chose to lean on his faith and trust God and the Child was born. The child is now 10 years old and travels to different places with his father and shares his story with other troubled and sick kids. I can only imagine the impact that is having on not only the other kids lives but other Adults faced with similiar choices.


Another more familiar story is that of John Walsh of his show "America's Most Wanted'. Most of us are familar with the kidnapping and murder of his son Adam. Mr Waslh was faced with his freewill choice of living in self pity and hate for life (who could blame him right?) or doing something positive in his son's memory. His show and his actions has been responsible for valueable legislation and the capturing of 1000's of fugitives.

There are countless other similiar stories. I chose these 2 because good came from the life of a person and good came from the death of the person.
Does John Walsh wish he had his son, absolutely. My point is God can use any and every situation even if a person makes a bad freewill choice (someone killing Adam walsh) or a good freewill choice (The Youth minister and John Walsh) some outcomes take longer than others,its all in God's timing not ours. that is my belief and my freewill choice and it is why i have the faith that i do. Everyone has the freewill choice to believe or not. But God is control.

The problem with your logic is that it can be used for anything and everything. For an optimist, good can be found in any tragedy!
In 1996, the kidnapping and murder of Amber Hagerman leads to the creation and implementation of the Amber Alert. This has, in it's time possibly saved hundreds of children from abduction and possibly death! From what I gather from your logic you believe that your god allowed Amber to die so that this Amber Alert can come into existence! Is Amber's death justifiable because the Amber Alert was created? I say no!

Skyhook79;645493 wrote:There is a story of a youth minister whose wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. During one of her exams the dr told them that there was a problem. the baby was going to be born with a heart defect, essentially a hole in the heart that only several surgeries could repair and it was a longshot at best, 2% chance of survival after 4 days of birth. The dr suggested that they have an abortion based on his assumptions that the couple would be bankrupt from the surgeries, strain on their marriage and the child's quality of life. The father was faced with a freewill choice of what direction to take. He chose to lean on his faith and trust God and the Child was born. The child is now 10 years old and travels to different places with his father and shares his story with other troubled and sick kids. I can only imagine the impact that is having on not only the other kids lives but other Adults faced with similiar choices.
.

That truly is a wonderful story, and it's good to know they made the right decision. But was that really god that helped the child, or maybe the child just fought hard and made it on it's own? My wife and I were pregnant with our second child almost a year ago, unfortunately we lost the baby early on. I don't blame god for it, I don't think it "happened for a reason", basically I think 'shit happens'. It was very sad, but I couldn't see god having a "plan" to not let our child make it.

Skyhook79;645493 wrote:There is a story of a youth minister whose wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. During one of her exams the dr told them that there was a problem. the baby was going to be born with a heart defect, essentially a hole in the heart that only several surgeries could repair and it was a longshot at best, 2% chance of survival after 4 days of birth. The dr suggested that they have an abortion based on his assumptions that the couple would be bankrupt from the surgeries, strain on their marriage and the child's quality of life. The father was faced with a freewill choice of what direction to take. He chose to lean on his faith and trust God and the Child was born. The child is now 10 years old and travels to different places with his father and shares his story with other troubled and sick kids. I can only imagine the impact that is having on not only the other kids lives but other Adults faced with similiar choices.


Another more familiar story is that of John Walsh of his show "America's Most Wanted'. Most of us are familar with the kidnapping and murder of his son Adam. Mr Waslh was faced with his freewill choice of living in self pity and hate for life (who could blame him right?) or doing something positive in his son's memory. His show and his actions has been responsible for valueable legislation and the capturing of 1000's of fugitives.

There are countless other similiar stories. I chose these 2 because good came from the life of a person and good came from the death of the person.
Does John Walsh wish he had his son, absolutely. My point is God can use any and every situation even if a person makes a bad freewill choice (someone killing Adam walsh) or a good freewill choice (The Youth minister and John Walsh) some outcomes take longer than others,its all in God's timing not ours. that is my belief and my freewill choice and it is why i have the faith that i do. Everyone has the freewill choice to believe or not. But God is control.

Get help.

O-Trap;643598 wrote:A "religion" as a whole cannot, though I certainly do believe that there are many who try to use just about every religion for profit. Sickening, but true.

And did I just see Sleeper type that God "might be" real????

Good to see you, Sleeper.

It's more of a problem with religion than anything, or the logic used by many to justify the existence of a god. Just read this post:

Yes.

I have seen evidence in Him time and time again. From the look in my children's eyes to the beauty of a sunset to the compassion shown both of my dying parents.

He is real.

Delusional.

CenterBHSFan;643622 wrote:I believe God is real. And I will continue to do so until it is proven without any doubts that God is not real.

This will never happen. You are delusional.

I wanted to add, even if there was evidence that shatters the existence of god, you would be on here trying to rationalize more bull crap. It's a never ending cycle.

jmog;645181 wrote:Then you don't understand the difference between our calender and the Jewish calendar.

i completely understand the difference. I figure if the date of jesus' birth is celebrated on a day in which he was not born, the same practice would essentially be acceptable for celebration of his death.

Sleeper, I don't blame most people for having a problem with the way that "religions" (I'll use that term to mean worldviews that assert the reality of the supernatural) have engaged themselves. It's one of the few times I won't challenge someone's anecdotes being used as a reason for them to not like an institution, though, because often, it's the LEADERS of said institutions that cause such problems.

O-Trap;644845 wrote:This seems like a very subjective and arbitrary reason not to believe. I can't blame that for personal conviction, but to suggest that it is grounds to assert something as fact is probably not founded.



But again, you're using something subjective to determine value. As such, it is not "inherent," which was the statement I was making.

I can say that all things which remind me of locks are bad, and I would thus be setting the parameters for good and evil myself, and then attributing those values to things in daily life. With this outlook, all one is doing is defining how something is good or bad, and then saying things are good or bad based on that.

Again, it goes back to the toddler with the shot. That brings pain to the toddler, so using the pleasure vs. pain test, the toddler ... again not having a full understanding of the purpose for a shot ... would simply chalk up a shot as being bad. He arbitrarily sets the standard for good and bad, then he applies it to things in life. Doesn't really MAKE them any more good or bad, intrinsically, though.

Well, persons who adhere to the position of classical hedonism would make arguments to your counter examples as to why pleasure does indeed have intrinsic value. Whether or not we can know this to be true is another issue but the idea to me, that something cannot have intrinsic value without a creator God's existence seems misplaced. They would attempt to ground their hypothesis so as to make the case that pleasure is inherently good and we can come to that conclusion from an objective perspective. If there is some concept of "goodness" floating around, you with your belief that locks are good and the classical hedonist are going to attempt to attach your hypothesis and make the case that indeed your theory of the "good" is the correct one. Of course this is very difficult as this back and forth has been carrying on since before the days of Plato.

But, for instance, in the Bible, the Lord tells us that is wrong to murder. Is it wrong to murder because it is intrinsically bad to take a human life with an evil state of mind? Or, is it simply wrong to murder because God says so?

It seems to me that you're saying, if there are things that are intrinsically good, the only way we can find out what is intrinsically good is through revelation from the God who created the universe or that things can only gain their intrinsic goodness through God sanctifying them as good.

I suppose on a very metaphysical level and because of any barriers to our epistemological aptitude this might be accepted as true. Perhaps practical reasoning is a fiction, a cheap deception to help us make sense of the world and it is impossible to find out what is "good" through our cognitive faculties and traditional reasoning or perhaps the concepts of good and evil do not attach themselves to things unless God declares so in what may be an arbitrary fashion if things don't have an inherently good or bad quality about them. Either way, it does not seem as if this position does not give us much to work from to help us know how we ought to live.

BORIStheCrusher;645532 wrote:That truly is a wonderful story, and it's good to know they made the right decision. But was that really god that helped the child, or maybe the child just fought hard and made it on it's own? My wife and I were pregnant with our second child almost a year ago, unfortunately we lost the baby early on. I don't blame god for it, I don't think it "happened for a reason", basically I think 'shit happens'. It was very sad, but I couldn't see god having a "plan" to not let our child make it.

You could make that argument sure. Faith is a huge part of ANY Religious belief. My belief and Faith is based on the Bible and the life,Death and ressurection of Jesus and I make no apologies for that. I am truly sorry for your loss but my faith tells me that you may not see God having a plan for this happening but like i said, its in God's timing not ours.

sleeper;645548 wrote:This will never happen. You are delusional.

Of course I'm delusional. I post on here, don't I?! lol

"even if" is as hypothetical as "believing", don't ya think? It takes just the same amount of faith to NOT believe as it does to believe, IMO. Not to mention a certain amount of zealotry.

Also, the only way to be truly ambivalent about it would be through pure laziness and having an uncurious mind, I think.

wkfan;643616 wrote:Yes.

I have seen evidence in Him time and time again. From the look in my children's eyes to the beauty of a sunset to the compassion shown both of my dying parents.

He is real.

[video=youtube;vM5n8jESUEk][/video]

This sums it up!

BoatShoes;645592 wrote:Well, persons who adhere to the position of classical hedonism would make arguments to your counter examples as to why pleasure does indeed have intrinsic value.

I'd be curious to hear such defeaters.

I took my examples one step up, but the problem is, that was just in the example, and without some sort of viable ultimate authority (for this particular discussion, a Creator), to what authority can one appeal to even suggest such intrinsic value?

BoatShoes;645592 wrote:Whether or not we can know this to be true is another issue but the idea to me, that something cannot have intrinsic value without a creator God's existence seems misplaced.

I wasn't saying that it had to be a God. I was simply saying that there can't really be a contention that intrinsic value exists apart from ANY super-universal authority. Whether this would be a sentient God or just some random sphere of energy doesn't matter (for this argument, anyway).

BoatShoes;645592 wrote:They would attempt to ground their hypothesis so as to make the case that pleasure is inherently good and we can come to that conclusion from an objective perspective. If there is some concept of "goodness" floating around, you with your belief that locks are good and the classical hedonist are going to attempt to attach your hypothesis and make the case that indeed your theory of the "good" is the correct one. Of course this is very difficult as this back and forth has been carrying on since before the days of Plato.

Indeed, but just as it was then, this wouldn't establish an innate goodness characteristic. It's still subjective, provided that we live in the same universe (I'll be clear to make that presupposition, as I'm betting it's one we share.).

BoatShoes;645592 wrote:But, for instance, in the Bible, the Lord tells us that is wrong to murder. Is it wrong to murder because it is intrinsically bad to take a human life with an evil state of mind? Or, is it simply wrong to murder because God says so?

There is a back and forth about this, and I know the problems with both sides.

(a) If something is intrinsically wrong, it still requires an authority. If the innate characteristic of "rightness" is outside the intent of the Creator, then the Creator is bound by it.

(b) If God determined that it is right or wrong, one can argue that it is still not intrinsically so, but that it is merely an ascribed character trait by a higher authority.

If push absolutely came to shove, I'd live with the latter problem.

BoatShoes;645592 wrote:It seems to me that you're saying, if there are things that are intrinsically good, the only way we can find out what is intrinsically good is through revelation from the God who created the universe or that things can only gain their intrinsic goodness through God sanctifying them as good.

Not quite, but you're close.

What I'm saying is that in order for something to be intrinsically good or bad, there have to be factual parameters for what defines "good" and "bad" (not the word, but the trait, as words are a whole new can of worms). So then, there must be an authority to which can be appealed to set these parameters. I've heard people say that "nature" or "universal law" are such authorities, and they're technically on the same side of the fact that there must be SOME kind of authority. Asking them to explain their reasoning for their conclusion seems to raise problems with it, but they at least share the notion that an appeal to SOME authority has to be made if there is value in something other than that which we ascribe ourselves.

BoatShoes;645592 wrote:I suppose on a very metaphysical level and because of any barriers to our epistemological aptitude this might be accepted as true. Perhaps practical reasoning is a fiction, a cheap deception to help us make sense of the world and it is impossible to find out what is "good" through our cognitive faculties and traditional reasoning or perhaps the concepts of good and evil do not attach themselves to things unless God declares so in what may be an arbitrary fashion if things don't have an inherently good or bad quality about them. Either way, it does not seem as if this position does not give us much to work from to help us know how we ought to live.

Certainly not an ending point, I agree. I would never suggest otherwise.

O-Trap;645562 wrote:Sleeper, I don't blame most people for having a problem with the way that "religions" (I'll use that term to mean worldviews that assert the reality of the supernatural) have engaged themselves. It's one of the few times I won't challenge someone's anecdotes being used as a reason for them to not like an institution, though, because often, it's the LEADERS of said institutions that cause such problems.

How can the leaders only be to blame? The sheep that follow them and allow them to extort their money/opinions are just as guilty. You don't need a religion to believe in God, and being in a religion offers no benefits. No you are not a good person because you go to church, nor does anyone care that you don't eat bacon because it makes the soul dirty.

Religions are the problem, people should find something better to do with their time.