On 2012-06-23 08:36, R.S. wrote:
If everybody in the world undertook a detailed analysis of all religions before selecting one, then you would expect to see a somewhat even distribution of religious preference around the world, no?

On 2012-06-24 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

Quote:

I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.

That comes pretty close to summarizing the difference between science and religion.

On 2012-06-24 09:11, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-24 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

Quote:

I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.

That comes pretty close to summarizing the difference between science and religion.

Not realy.

Wothout a Supreme Being science would not be possible. So science is dependent on a Supreme Being and not the other way around. Science cannot create a Supreme Being but a Supreme Being Can created what we term science. That is the difference. Without the Supreme Being you are back to the someting from nothing theory and that is why science endears this theory. It does away with the Supreme Being. Science forever wants to taste the forbidden fruit and play God. Do not mistake the forbidden fruit as researach and advancement for God gave us that potential, but rather wanting to know all that God knows and become Godlike, that is the forbidden fruit. Man was not satisfied in the Garden of Eden with no maladies. He wanted to know more and become just like God. Just as the angels fell so did man. The one thing he was asked not to persue is what caused his downfall, "The Forbidden Fruit". Questioning and discussisng The Forbidden Fruit would be a topic in of itself.

On 2012-06-24 00:25, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-23 22:06, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-23 21:19, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-23 12:47, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-23 09:14, acesover wrote:
Obviously the majority of people in this world have been fooled according to you as I believe the majority of people in this world are christians. I guess you atheists are just smarter than most everyone else. Can't fool you guys first there was nothing then there was something then here we are Bang. And you are talking about a ball under a cup. Jeeeez.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT

Aces,

EVERYBODY in the world has been deceived by their own senses/perceptions/memory at one time or another. Claiming 100% certainty about anything is probably not a good idea. (and I'm 99.9999% certain about that statement)

Yes, I AM talking about a ball under a cup! It either exists or it does not, right? Some wholeheartedly believe it does while some may not. But when the cup is lifted and the truth is revealed, we see that somebody was wrong. Somebody who "knew for sure" that they were correct in their belief.

No thanks, I will NOT "believe what I want." I will instead accept that which is backed by sound evidence, reason, and logic. And I will, if necessary, gladly dismiss that which I have previously accepted in the face of new, more convincing evidence for something else. That should be the correct approach, no?


Ron

OK then. Having said what you said above. Exactly what proof would you need to believe in God? What sort of sound evidence, reason and logic would make yo ubelieve in God? You did saay yoiu would except that which is back by those atributes? So again just asking?

An omiscient and omnipotent God would know what it would take to convince me. If he wants to leave convincing evidence (convincing to me), or reveal himself to me in some way, it would easily be in his power to do so.

But let me ask you, what would it take for YOU to believe in, say, Ganesha?

Ron

Who?

I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.

So you cannot reallyanswer my question can you? You said and I quote you here: "I will instead accept that which is backed by sound evidence, reason, and logic." but when I asked you what it would take you have no answer. So what you said is a lot of baloney right? I mean I am only quoting you not being a wise guy here.

On 2012-06-24 07:56, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-23 08:36, R.S. wrote:
If everybody in the world undertook a detailed analysis of all religions before selecting one, then you would expect to see a somewhat even distribution of religious preference around the world, no?

No.

If they were all equally appealing, then maybe. (Only "maybe" because there would still be cultural considerations that would tend to nudge individuals one way or another in close cases, so the distribution of, say, world-wide political views might have a big sway on world-wide religious views.)

On 2012-06-24 09:30, Steve_Mollett wrote:

That's making the very loaded assumption that a supreme being even exists.
Even WITH a 'god' you are back to the "something from nothing" stance, since the 'god' allegedly either "came from nothing" or "always existed."
If the 'god' could have "always existed," why couldn't the elements that compose the constantly-in-motion universe?

On 2012-06-23 22:06, R.S. wrote:

An omiscient and omnipotent God would know what it would take to convince me. If he wants to leave convincing evidence (convincing to me), or reveal himself to me in some way, it would easily be in his power to do so.

But let me ask you, what would it take for YOU to believe in, say, Ganesha?

Ron

On 2012-06-24 02:17, critter wrote:

Quote:

...I guess the application of a 'year of patience' for divorcing couples would come into play too...

I don't know what this is- but if it's what it sounds like then it sounds just awful.

*Edit* Looked it up. It's what it sounds like.

On 2012-06-24 10:06, The great Gumbini wrote:
Now am I to understand that you want to take the BIBLICAL claim that God always existed and use that for the elements? Interesting---and in some ways partly taking ideas from the Bible. I like it. At least you can see how the Bible explains things and the always existent God. Now if you suggest this may be applied to the "elements" then why not apply it to Who it was first written for---GOD? He ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will EXIST!


Good magic to all,


Eric

On 2012-06-24 09:11, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-24 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

Quote:

I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.

That comes pretty close to summarizing the difference between science and religion.

Not realy.

Wothout a Supreme Being science would not be possible. So science is dependent on a Supreme Being and not the other way around. Science cannot create a Supreme Being but a Supreme Being Can created what we term science. That is the difference. Without the Supreme Being you are back to the someting from nothing theory and that is why science endears this theory. It does away with the Supreme Being. Science forever wants to taste the forbidden fruit and play God. Do not mistake the forbidden fruit as researach and advancement for God gave us that potential, but rather wanting to know all that God knows and become Godlike, that is the forbidden fruit. Man was not satisfied in the Garden of Eden with no maladies. He wanted to know more and become just like God. Just as the angels fell so did man. The one thing he was asked not to persue is what caused his downfall, "The Forbidden Fruit". Questioning and discussisng The Forbidden Fruit would be a topic in of itself.

On 2012-06-24 10:00, Dreadnought wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-23 22:06, R.S. wrote:

An omiscient and omnipotent God would know what it would take to convince me. If he wants to leave convincing evidence (convincing to me), or reveal himself to me in some way, it would easily be in his power to do so.

But let me ask you, what would it take for YOU to believe in, say, Ganesha?

Ron

It depends on what definition of omniscient and omnipotent you are using. Theologically, He has given you everything you need. In John's last Supper Discourse (Chapter 15) and the Matthew and Mark account of the Last Supper, Jesus (God) knows that there will be those who do not believe. In John 15, He prays for His disciples and those that come after them and believe, He doesn't pray for everyone, He doesn't pray for the unbelieving, because He knows no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

Peace and Godspeed.

On 2012-06-24 09:55, Dreadnought wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-24 09:30, Steve_Mollett wrote:

That's making the very loaded assumption that a supreme being even exists.
Even WITH a 'god' you are back to the "something from nothing" stance, since the 'god' allegedly either "came from nothing" or "always existed."
If the 'god' could have "always existed," why couldn't the elements that compose the constantly-in-motion universe?

Because then those elements would be God.

On 2012-06-24 10:06, The great Gumbini wrote:
Now am I to understand that you want to take the BIBLICAL claim that God always existed and use that for the elements? Interesting---and in some ways partly taking ideas from the Bible. I like it. At least you can see how the Bible explains things and the always existent God. Now if you suggest this may be applied to the "elements" then why not apply it to Who it was first written for---GOD? He ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will EXIST!


Good magic to all,


Eric

On 2012-06-24 11:32, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Don't get me wrong though, I still maintain such has not been proven to exist.