Do you believe in God??

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]I don't question other's belief that there is no God. But the need for proof has always been something I will never understand.rawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] elaborate, I don't get to see your religious side often.xaos

I heard you xaos talking about this before. Basically you say that you don't respect a God that have the morality of eternal hell, punishing good people who don't believe in him...etc. Correct me if I'm wrong. The way you say these things kind of give me the vibe that you don't disbelieve in God, you just hate him. Again correct me if I'm wrong. When you and everyone else eventually die, what are you going to do? seriously no "witty" post :P. I mean what is this going to do to you after death? I mean sometimes we need to compromise you know what I mean? Not saying that I share your portrait of God and his morality, just coming from your point of view.GazaAli

I'm a christian , andFOR SURE believe in only one God , the creator of all and everything the Christian GOD , and from the bottom of my heart till the top of my soul!

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]I don't question other's belief that there is no God. But the need for proof has always been something I will never understand.rawsavon

If something is trivial and not really something I would think has great consequences if I reached the wrong conclusion about it then I wont really bother with requiring evidence.

If the issue at hand though is one that has a lot of aspects to it and lots of implications about a plethora of things (life, the world, what is, what isnt) then of course I will want a lot of proof to believe it.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Xaos and I do not share the same opinion. I just respect his POV. I believe in the Christian Godxaos

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] elaborate, I don't get to see your religious side often.Teenaged

If something is trivial and not really something I would think has great consequences if I reached the wrong conclusion about it then I wont really bother with requiring evidence.

If the issue at hand though is one that has a lot of aspects to it and lots of implications about a plethora of things (life, the world, what is, what isnt) then of course I will want a lot of proof to believe it.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] To believe or not to believe is one thing. To require proof is quite another. How many things in this life have actually been proved to US (not someone proved them long ago and we accept them as such) -how many things have been proved to be 100% true to 'you' -yet we accept most everything as proven -seems foolish to have a double standard is all Note that seeing evidence =/= something being proven (something is seen as 'true' only till something comes along to show otherwise)rawsavon

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] To believe or not to believe is one thing. To require proof is quite another. How many things in this life have actually been proved to US (not someone proved them long ago and we accept them as such) -how many things have been proved to be 100% true to 'you' -yet we accept most everything as proven -seems foolish to have a double standard is all Note that seeing evidence =/= something being proven (something is seen as 'true' only till something comes along to show otherwise)rawsavon

If something is trivial and not really something I would think has great consequences if I reached the wrong conclusion about it then I wont really bother with requiring evidence.

If the issue at hand though is one that has a lot of aspects to it and lots of implications about a plethora of things (life, the world, what is, what isnt) then of course I will want a lot of proof to believe it.

I said that in some cases 100% convincing evidence isnt needed because of the nature of the thing that I am told.

So obviously there are some things that I reasonably dont mind taking someone's word for them because they arent as important as god or the afterlife or the supernatural, and other things for which I do want more evidence even if not 100% convincing.

Ok whats the difference between those two words?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] To believe or not to believe is one thing. To require proof is quite another. How many things in this life have actually been proved to US (not someone proved them long ago and we accept them as such) -how many things have been proved to be 100% true to 'you' -yet we accept most everything as proven -seems foolish to have a double standard is all Note that seeing evidence =/= something being proven (something is seen as 'true' only till something comes along to show otherwise)rawsavon

If something is trivial and not really something I would think has great consequences if I reached the wrong conclusion about it then I wont really bother with requiring evidence.

If the issue at hand though is one that has a lot of aspects to it and lots of implications about a plethora of things (life, the world, what is, what isnt) then of course I will want a lot of proof to believe it.

I think the real issue is that people want to believe that current science can account for everything that God supposedly did. It's really just human arrogance. We've come a long ways technologically and scientifically in the last 6,000 years or so.. But not so far that we can understand even a decent fraction of what's going on in our universe.

I can understand people having some moral issues with the way that the God of the Bible is portrayed doing certain things. I sometimes deal with those issues myself. I think people are too idealistic when it comes to thinking about God. The only things that I need to know for sure about God are that he created my whole race, and has the power over life and death (including resurrection). If I accept those things, then I have to accept that God is above me, and above all humans. That's enough for me to have a healthy respect for him and his minions.. Whether he is a humanoid, the leader of a race of aliens who created us, or a ball of ethereal energy, it doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="xaos"] My disbelief is more based on my ethical issues with God as portrayed but belief in the supernatural is qualitatively different from something like believing that antibiotics work or that Belgium exists, IMO.ganon92

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But dont you think that different things require different amounts of evidence?

If something is trivial and not really something I would think has great consequences if I reached the wrong conclusion about it then I wont really bother with requiring evidence.

If the issue at hand though is one that has a lot of aspects to it and lots of implications about a plethora of things (life, the world, what is, what isnt) then of course I will want a lot of proof to believe it.

I think the real issue is that people want to believe that current science can account for everything that God supposedly did. It's really just human arrogance. We've come a long ways technologically and scientifically in the last 6,000 years or so.. But not so far that we can understand even a decent fraction of what's going on in our universe.

I can understand people having some moral issues with the way that the God of the Bible is portrayed doing certain things. I sometimes deal with those issues myself. I think people are too idealistic when it comes to thinking about God. The only things that I need to know for sure about God are that he created my whole race, and has the power over life and death (including resurrection). If I accept those things, then I have to accept that God is above me, and above all humans. That's enough for me to have a healthy respect for him and his minions.. Whether he is a humanoid, the leader of a race of aliens who created us, or a ball of ethereal energy, it doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="xaos"] My disbelief is more based on my ethical issues with God as portrayed but belief in the supernatural is qualitatively different from something like believing that antibiotics work or that Belgium exists, IMO.ganon92

I think the events in the Bible and other ancient Holy Books around the world are evidence of God's existence. People like to call them myths, I call call them historical accounts written by people who didn't understand what they were seeing. They were clearly interacting with some more advanced beings, and having some laws passed down to them from such beings.

you still did not answer my question. I remember feeling this way when I was 9-10 but I grew up to realize that there must be an after life and I'm willing to make the sacrifice.GazaAli

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Once again i ask, how many things have been proven to be 100% true to YOU? -versus how many things do you just take another person's word for it -remember that evidence =/= proof rawsavon

I think the real issue is that people want to believe that current science can account for everything that God supposedly did. It's really just human arrogance. We've come a long ways technologically and scientifically in the last 6,000 years or so.. But not so far that we can understand even a decent fraction of what's going on in our universe.

I can understand people having some moral issues with the way that the God of the Bible is portrayed doing certain things. I sometimes deal with those issues myself. I think people are too idealistic when it comes to thinking about God. The only things that I need to know for sure about God are that he created my whole race, and has the power over life and death (including resurrection). If I accept those things, then I have to accept that God is above me, and above all humans. That's enough for me to have a healthy respect for him and his minions.. Whether he is a humanoid, the leader of a race of aliens who created us, or a ball of ethereal energy, it doesn't really matter.

It's good to know that someone here on OT has similar beliefs :P

[QUOTE="ganon92"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] That is the perfect example IMO. It does not make sense for God to act a certain way.... I have no issue with people feeling that way. I enjoy those conversations. I just think it foolish to require proof for everything -people usually (99% of the time) take other people's words for what is true/not -many things seen as true have been proven otherwise -many things thought to be untrue have been proven to be true ...do we really ever know if anything proven either way israwsavon

Should we not accept what seems true by current standards just because things of the past have been disproven?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But dont you think that different things require different amounts of evidence?

If something is trivial and not really something I would think has great consequences if I reached the wrong conclusion about it then I wont really bother with requiring evidence.

If the issue at hand though is one that has a lot of aspects to it and lots of implications about a plethora of things (life, the world, what is, what isnt) then of course I will want a lot of proof to believe it.

I said that in some cases 100% convincing evidence isnt needed because of the nature of the thing that I am told.

So obviously there are some things that I reasonably dont mind taking someone's word for them because they arent as important as god or the afterlife or the supernatural, and other things for which I do want more evidence even if not 100% convincing.

Ok whats the difference between those two words?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="ganon92"] Some things can be accepted with little evidence because they're likely or natural. For example, if I'm facing away from a window and someone tells me that it's raining, I don't need to turn around to accept that necessarily, as it's a natural occurrence, especially in England. God is different matter, as you're talking about a supernatural being with incredible powers; this is something that needs extraordinary evidence.Teenaged

Should we not accept what seems true by current standards just because things of the past have been disproven?

If nothing has been proven 100% true to you, then why expect more proof for something even harder to prove -believe what you want (that is not the point) It is easy to prove that it is raining It is harder to prove where the rain came from The 'bigger' the issue, the harder it is to gather evidence forrawsavon

If so then yes I can agree.

Since I believe that death is the end of my existence, there really isn't any way to answer your question. If I am proven wrong and there is an afterlife, I am not willing to compromise and bow to a God whose behavior is unethical; that's not compromise to me, that's surrender.xaos

People said the same thing numerous times throughout history (objects falling at different rates, flat earth, young earth, etc). -they all seemed true at the timerawsavon

I don't blame people at the time for thinking that.

God may well exist, but right now, there exists no evidence to suggest it.

At the same time he very well may not exist at all.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]you still did not answer my question. I remember feeling this way when I was 9-10 but I grew up to realize that there must be an after life and I'm willing to make the sacrifice.xaos

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]you still did not answer my question. I remember feeling this way when I was 9-10 but I grew up to realize that there must be an after life and I'm willing to make the sacrifice.xaos

Not to mention the concept of heaven and eternal life is just as scary as burning in a lake of fire. Most people do not truly take the time to grasp the concept of heaven and eternal life. From my understanding, heaven in the Christian perspective, is paradise and worshiping God for all eternity. The way I see this, you wouldn't be able to even be yourself, due to the constant eye of God that looms over you. You would be required to worship God a lot, apparently. That sounds like hell to me.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] People said the same thing numerous times throughout history (objects falling at different rates, flat earth, young earth, etc). -they all seemed true at the timerawsavon

Should we not accept what seems true by current standards just because things of the past have been disproven?

The issue of the shape of the earth doesnt have the same meaning and logical consequences as the issue of God.

And besides I am sure that even though you dont actively seek for evidence about the shape of the earth, you are assured of our current knowledge by every day occurances (ships crossing the Atlantic and the Pacific proving the earth is spherical, pictures in a magazine showing the earth from space and so on).

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] People said the same thing numerous times throughout history (objects falling at different rates, flat earth, young earth, etc). -they all seemed true at the timeganon92

I don't blame people at the time for thinking that.

God may well exist, but right now, there exists no evidence to suggest it.

At the same time he very well may not exist at all.

You said that you don't 100% disbelieve in God which means there is still the possibility of an afterlife-just as you said. You are welling to face eternal hell and not bow? I think we found Satan's disguise j/k. I dunno what to say, I mean I bow, totally. Do you think that's a wise decision? notice the word wise. You may feel rpoud about a decision you made in your life, but that does not make it wise or best rationally.GazaAli

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]And?

Should we not accept what seems true by current standards just because things of the past have been disproven?

The issue of the shape of the earth doesnt have the same meaning and logical consequences as the issue of God.

And besides I am sure that even though you dont actively seek for evidence about the shape of the earth, you are assured of our current knowledge by every day occurances (ships crossing the Atlantic and the Pacific proving the earth is spherical, pictures in a magazine showing the earth from space and so on).

@LikeHaterade I don't know about How the bible describes heaven, but in Islam, its literally about "Things that have never come to a human mind". This includes food and drinks of totally different criteria and enjoyment, fantasy-like women and anything else you want. In one of the Hadiths, one of these women would fell the universe light and will make the sun disappear. You may find this funny but I just wanted to give you something maybe new.GazaAli

What of the non-believers according to Islam?

[QUOTE="ganon92"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] People said the same thing numerous times throughout history (objects falling at different rates, flat earth, young earth, etc). -they all seemed true at the timerawsavon

I don't blame people at the time for thinking that.

God may well exist, but right now, there exists no evidence to suggest it.

At the same time he very well may not exist at all.

[QUOTE="ganon92"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] People said the same thing numerous times throughout history (objects falling at different rates, flat earth, young earth, etc). -they all seemed true at the timerawsavon

I don't blame people at the time for thinking that.

God may well exist, but right now, there exists no evidence to suggest it.

At the same time he very well may not exist at all.

Well technically you can't prove anything 100 percent. You can't say with 100 percent certaintly that the Sun will rise tmw, however you can say that's it's extremely probable that it will. The difference being that in cases like this we have verifiable evidence to support the sun rising again each morning, the same cannot be said for the existence of God.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]you still did not answer my question. I remember feeling this way when I was 9-10 but I grew up to realize that there must be an after life and I'm willing to make the sacrifice.GazaAli

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="ganon92"]

I don't blame people at the time for thinking that.

God may well exist, but right now, there exists no evidence to suggest it.

At the same time he very well may not exist at all.

ganon92

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="ganon92"]

I don't blame people at the time for thinking that.

God may well exist, but right now, there exists no evidence to suggest it.

At the same time he very well may not exist at all.

Well technically you can't prove anything 100 percent. You can't say with 100 percent certaintly that the Sun will rise tmw, however you can say that's it's extremely probable that it will. The difference being that in cases like this we have verifiable evidence to support the sun rising again each morning, the same cannot be said for the existence of God.

Depends on your POV on the matter. People choose to see things in a way that best fits their view of the world...their life schema. It is done to reduce cognitive dissonance. So where one person sees evidence of God another sees evidence of something elserawsavon

The evidence I'm talking about is objective and verifiable evidence. Someone feeling the hand of God in their life may be enough evidence to them, however it is in no way evidence to anyone else out there.

It's true that we cannot prove anything to 100% certainty out there, but then to equate the existence of believing in God, to lets say believing in Whales, is a bit ridiculous.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Depends on your POV on the matter. People choose to see things in a way that best fits their view of the world...their life schema. It is done to reduce cognitive dissonance. So where one person sees evidence of God another sees evidence of something elseHoolaHoopMan

The evidence I'm talking about is objective and verifiable evidence. Someone feeling the hand of God in their life may be enough evidence to them, however it is in no way evidence to anyone else out there.

It's true that we cannot prove anything to 100% certainty out there, but then to equate the existence of believing in God, to lets say believing in Whales, is a bit ridiculous.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] The qustioni is not to accept (or not). I accept those things as well. But I do not require proof for them eitherrawsavon

The issue of the shape of the earth doesnt have the same meaning and logical consequences as the issue of God.

And besides I am sure that even though you dont actively seek for evidence about the shape of the earth, you are assured of our current knowledge by every day occurances (ships crossing the Atlantic and the Pacific proving the earth is spherical, pictures in a magazine showing the earth from space and so on).

They just place stricter criteria for the evidence depending on the importance they place on an issue. And the reason they place different importance on different issues is due to how they feel about them. Yes thats subjective but imo there are certain "trends" among people.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But the thing is that those things arent the same as the issue of God (and by extension of course every issue is different than another; not just God vs the rest).

The issue of the shape of the earth doesnt have the same meaning and logical consequences as the issue of God.

And besides I am sure that even though you dont actively seek for evidence about the shape of the earth, you are assured of our current knowledge by every day occurances (ships crossing the Atlantic and the Pacific proving the earth is spherical, pictures in a magazine showing the earth from space and so on).

They just place stricter criteria for the evidence depending on the importance they place on an issue. And the reason they place different importance on different issues is due to how they feel about them. Yes thats subjective but imo there are certain "trends" among people.

IMO there is no "objective and verifiable evidence". -there are things that are close (as in 99.9%)...but nothing that is 100% objective and verifiable. What we say is "objective and verifiable evidence" was said in the past (and proven wrong) and will be said in the future (to prove things we say now as false). We all take stimuli/events in the world and shape them to fit our view of things (see thousands of studies on cognitive dissonance, witness testimony, etc) -we alter events to fit our world viewrawsavon

Well as I've previously stated nothing can be proven 100%, so with that I agree. For all we know everything we sense could be false, however this mentality kind of gets us no where. You might as well just call it quits if you carry this mentality around (not saying that you personally do).

What I mean by verifiable/objective evidence is stuff that can be reproduced and is falsifiable. If I make the statement "I will get a promotion tmw at work", that statement can be verified or falsified by observing the events of tmw. A statement along the lines of "God exists" or "Tmw I will talk to God" are two statements which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable due to their supernatural nature.

As per your stance on changing scientific beliefs, that's the entire point of science. Bad science is constantly being thrown out the door, it's a self correcting method which if anything says wonders about how strong it is. Good science will always do away with bad science, I don't see how this can be a bad thing at all. However having this attitude of "well we used to believe this but now it changed, why should I believe the new stuff" is missing the point. The WRONG stuff has been thrown out and replaced by theories or ideas that have stronger evidence supporting them.