DraTreu4 said: Probably would believe in god if the recent episode of berserk never happened. Ctrl+F "Berserk" Yep, basically came to say this. |
| (Translator's note: keikaku means plan) Just according to keikaku. |
| You all presume that if God showed himself/spoke to you, you'll only see/hear him with your senses without being rapt in his power.It will be needed for him only to talk to you, and omnipotence will be all around/inside you. We are not talking about greek gods witch are overly human–like, right? |
 |
ashishkaull said: BokuNoHawky said: Why do you assume that philosophy cannot be used to describe religion? To me it seems that you're using a classic sjw argument. ''You aren't of an Indian religion, so could you possibly understand anything I'm talking about'' Let me rephrase it . Asking a Computer Engineer for the treatment of Liver will not help . Similarly talking about God without the Knowledge of what God means across various religions will yield no result . The problem here is people think God from a Monotheistic and Personal ( being ) view point . So how are you supposed to answer or find answers , when 1st Question is vague and 2nd Data is incomplete . Sure it might not help, but the answer still might be fascinating. Your premise of insufficient qualifications would only work in an official debate. And why do you think people are so unfamiliar with politheism when Greek, Egyptian and Roman cultures are so well studied and known? |
 |
GreenSoap said: Similar feats of that of the Bible occuring. Like God turning people into salt, destroying villages for being too sexually lenient etc. Something "miraculous" occuring in the real world; something not provable by the laws of physics, which God is not bound to. That simply would not work because those who do not believe will simply respond that there is a natural explanation that just isn't discovered yet. There are endless excuses possible even if "God" came down himself and slapped them across the face. Renaultclio101 said: What evidence have you got that god exists in first place? Bible does not count as it can be someone who spread rumors in the first place and passed on from generation to generation Denying any written evidence would make belief in anything written down impossible. I won't defend the well-substantiated histories to you. I feel that is an adventure you may want to take on your own. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
GreenSoap said: RedRoseFring said: If the scientific community would universally agree that it couldn't have been caused naturally, I would stand by them.That simply would not work because those who do not believe will simply respond that there is a natural explanation that just isn't discovered yet. There are endless excuses possible even if "God" came down himself and slapped them across the face. The question was "What would it take to convince you?" Interesting. So you grant the scientific community absolute say in something beyond the realm of science? That's like saying if all the politicians said milk was bad for you, then you'd be absolutely convinced. Science deals with the observable, falsifiable and reproducible. The issue of "God" doesn't fall under any of those categories, so one has to wonder how that could be used as a metric for this issue. As for convincing me of the opposite, there are a number of issues that will have to come together to prove God to be a liar. Most of them would be deemed impossible of course, but so would a lot of what people demand as evidence for God. For instance: the universe not existing, a human being without sin, destruction of the people of Israel, etc. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| Good argument, and there are quite a few, tho i doubt there ever be any for personal God. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
GreenSoap said: RedRoseFring said: If the scientific community would universally agree that it couldn't have been caused naturally, I would stand by them.That simply would not work because those who do not believe will simply respond that there is a natural explanation that just isn't discovered yet. There are endless excuses possible even if "God" came down himself and slapped them across the face. The question was "What would it take to convince you?" Except what happens when an unnatural phenomena is discovered? It gets attributed to an unknown realm of science and stays there until anyone comes up with a cohesive and predictable model of it. |
|
| If a shipment of BDs for all of my favorite anime arrives at my door tomorrow, I'll worship whichever god first claims credit for it. |
 |
| When your plane's engine died mid-flight, you'll believe in every Gods you ever heard as you crash while screaming their name. |
Kaiser-chanJul 8, 2016 7:35 PM
 |
GreenSoap said: Well they would have to explain themselves. If the government were to say that the cows have been producing hints of acid in the milk, then yeah I'd have no reason not to accept that. As with the scientists... if they were to universally come to the conclusion of God; by testing it - are peoples prairs answered etc. - and ultimately prove it. If God became a fact much like evolution, then yeah, I don't see any reason not to accept it. God is extremely observable in the Bible for the humans, especially in the old testament. It's really more that if the extraordinary events like those in the Bible (or any other holy text) were to reoccur, then by God I'm a Christian hallelujah amen. That would require the politicians to use the conclusions of people in other fields. Politicians aren't the ones you'd typically go to for detecting acids. There's little that is "universal" in science. Science itself is not a monolith and different branches have different objectives and applications. Also, how exactly would you expect scientists to "test" God? Has any such test already been carried out because you've already rejected the idea. Also, what would you decide if the consensus changes numerous times in your lifetime? Science isn't static after all. God did appear to people in the Old Testament, but certainly not to be observed under a microscope or to have tests run. That would be dismissed under the scientific method as anecdotal evidence because such encounters are not reproducible. If such acts were to reoccur, people will simply dismiss them as having alternative natural explanations simply not discovered yet. We know how people think. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Sleee said: It's impossible to believe in God if you've taken Anthropology, Philosophy, and Ethics. Simply impossible unless you're ignorant. That statement is ignorant in itself. Some of the strongest fields for belief in God is philosophy and ethics. Anthropology is understandable from a naturalistic viewpoint though. Heck, philosophy and ethics started out as theological subjects. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| I have been witness of enough divine manifestations that I no longer need convincing. I would call myself unorthodoxically Christian, as I do not believe God is purely good. This world alone has proven me this; as we are children of God, and mankind knows evil, God knows evil. It is also evident by passages such as Genesis and Exodus. Also, going by the more original texts of the Old Testament, an entity such as 'Satan' never did exist. The Church knew to be smart enough to manifest evil within a single entity and give it a name, so the people would not have to fear God. |
 » "Mercy is for losers..." « ⍏⍏⍏⍏⍏ inspector @ MAL's anime watching challenge |
Senpaoi said: I wouldn't believe in god, even if I prayed for $1,000,000,000 to be deposited into my bank account and it did. I would not want the god to interfere with my life. Not in the rebellious way, it would just be stupid and boring. How about a super powerful AI satellite device that essentially just gives you advice and power boosts when you most need them. Would you turn that down? |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Lestat- said: I have been witness of enough divine manifestations that I no longer need convincing. I would call myself unorthodoxically Christian, as I do not believe God is purely good. This world alone has proven me this; as we are children of God, and mankind knows evil, God knows evil. It is also evident by passages such as Genesis and Exodus. Also, going by the more original texts of the Old Testament, an entity such as 'Satan' never did exist. The Church knew to be smart enough to manifest evil within a single entity and give it a name, so the people would not have to fear God. I've never understood the difficulty people have in accepting that God is beyond moral labels. He's the source of all that is good and all that is bad. Calling God good or bad is just as labeling something like existence or fate 'good' or 'bad'. God is just God. If he tells you to deem him good, then do so. But understand that you cannot put labels on his essence. Everything he is, is in relation to you. But everything you are, is determined by the morality he sanctioned for you. |
Senpaoi said: xrockxz89 said: Power, yes. God wouldn't be able to grant power though.How about a super powerful AI satellite device that essentially just gives you advice and power boosts when you most need them. Would you turn that down? Well hey it's just a sentient satellite ;) you can call it what you like |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| materialists will never get an answer xD |
 Fixes to make the Profile more bearable after "the Modern★Profile★Update★★Rip★Profile★" |
| If God exists, s/he'll make me believe him. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
If the police comes to help me, then it is the police. I don't even need to point out the logical absurdity of this nonsense. That relationship is of necessity, the reverse is of sufficiency. Here: "If God makes me believe in him, then he exists''. But that too is nonsense. But at least it's not logically absurd. |
TranceJul 10, 2016 12:27 PM
GreenSoap said: Of course not, they're just relaying information in that case. You're supposing that God is beyond the realm of science, and what I'm saying is that if it WERE, and was proven to be fact, then I'd have no reason not to accept it. I'm not trying to claim that it is. This thread is just hypothetical bullshit, man. I know, it's more that I wouldn't accept it if but a fringe minority of scientists were to suppose it. I have no idea how it would be tested. "Has any such test already been carried out because you've already rejected the idea" What? When did I say that? I rejected it because I don't see any reason to believe it; my parents didn't push their believes on me as a child, and on top of that, it's already widely regarded as untrue in the scientific community for sheer logical reasons. If it's untestable as you say, then it's just rambling in my book. "Also, what would you decide if the consensus changes numerous times in your lifetime?" At this point the 'What if' questions just got way out there. Evolution for example, has been revised as new evidence has emerged. They wouldn't regard a model as fact if they were so unsure to the point where it got a complete overhaul every 2 years. I don't reject new findings in evolution because I have nothing to counter it with, because I don't have an alternate model. That's fine, but still a strange way to put it. It's like saying "I know that chemicals aren't in the field of politicians, but if it were I would believe 'x' chemical was safe to deal with if they said so." There is no scientific conclusions on the existence of God because science is incapable of dealing with the concept. That's a weird thing to say. Do not confuse the opinions of scientists who subscribe to a naturalistic worldview to be a conclusion on an issue. Again, science is not a monolith. In fact, God as a concept is a well-established in the field of philosophy for logical reasons. Scientific observations are also used as logical reasons for God's existence. It is a very hard thing to argue against, to the point that many choose the "spiritual" or "deist" positions because they simply cannot dispel the idea logically, but do not want to go all the way. The hardliners in rejection are looked at in a similar manner that religious extremists are looked at. Their reasons for rejecting it go from personal to emotional. They may try to use "logical" as an excuse, but that is easy to see through when their statements are easily dismantled. Just because an idea is untestable doesn't mean that people, including scientists take positions on them all the time. Issues like aliens, morals, multiverses, consciousness, universalism, etc fall in the same boat, but people take stances all the time. Ideas and conclusions do go through few to many modifications in science, but it could take centuries for an idea to be overthrown. This is why claims that are made as if absolute in science are always reproachable because it is an ever-changing field, but that is a fact many seem to forget. Science is treated as dogma by many, but that is just human nature in seeking assurance. It is human to err, and the best we can do with such a tool is to carry things out with caution and open-mindedness. We must also accept that that is sadly never and will never be the case. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Lestat- said: I have been witness of enough divine manifestations that I no longer need convincing. I would call myself unorthodoxically Christian, as I do not believe God is purely good. This world alone has proven me this; as we are children of God, and mankind knows evil, God knows evil. It is also evident by passages such as Genesis and Exodus. Also, going by the more original texts of the Old Testament, an entity such as 'Satan' never did exist. The Church knew to be smart enough to manifest evil within a single entity and give it a name, so the people would not have to fear God. It is commonly accepted that the oldest book in the Bible is the book of Job. It is in the Old Testament and Satan is one of the prominent characters. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| Simple Show up in front of me and I'll reconsider my faith Not that he'll ever do that eheuheuheuheu |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| An official revelation, otherwise I ain't buying it. |
物事は良くなりますか ？ |
More topics from this board
» What’s your actual opinion about Anime Discussion?fleurbleue - 6 hours ago |
22 |
by KittenCuddler
»»
5 seconds ago |
|
» What will it take for Fox to finally cancel The Simpsons?vasipi4946 - 4 hours ago |
3 |
by FanofAction
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Your ghost must haunt another user to convince them to help with your unsolved murder. Which user do you choose to attach yourself to? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Mar 18 |
58 |
by PeripheralVision
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Which is funnier? Looney Tunes or Woody Woodpecker?Absurdo_N - 2 hours ago |
2 |
by Kamikaze_404
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» What do you think is "your sentence" in MAL?Zakatsuki_ - 2 hours ago |
8 |
by fleurbleue
»»
25 minutes ago |