[another_someone]

Ben6789.

Sin is a Christian concept that only applies to the Christian religion and those taught "the word of god" within it. The concept of sin does not appear until late into the bible (Romans) where Paul interpreted it differently. He had to as without sinning Christianity would mean nothing i.e. Jesus would not have died for OUR sins. God never mentions sin in Genesis, where it was supposed to happen nor did Jesus mention it. Also one reason the Jewish religion does not believe in sin.

The problem is that under the Christian religion there can be no salvation without sinning first as the whole Christian ideal depends on sin, redemption and being scared of God!

So sin is relative to what you believe, or not as it does not affect all.

Bee

The word 'sin' has a roots in Latin and Germanic languages, so would not have existed as a word in the pre-Latin bible.  On the other hand, there is no doubt that God is supposed to have wrought punishment upon the Jews if the strayed from the path of righteousness; but for the Jews, the religion was more of a social instrument rather than a personal duty, and so in the Old Testament, one sees more often a communal punishment for the people as a whole, than a personal punishment for the individual (although, that having been said, one can look at the punishment met out to David and Bathsheba for their adulterous relationship.

Aside from that, both Hindu and Buddhist religions have the idea of leading a good life, free of evil, and the idea that if you do evil, it will rebound on you in the next life.  Unlike Christianity, the next life is not regarded as some other place (a heaven or a hell), but a reincarnation into this world, but with the burdens of the sins of your past lives placed upon your present life.  It is only when you have worked off all of your past evil deeds with good deeds, that you can free yourself from the cycle of reincarnation.

Different details, but not so very different in underlying ideas.

In fact, my own suspicion is that there is a fair degree of Hindu influence in Judaism, although I would not go as far as to say that Judaism evolved from Hinduism (or maybe Zoroastrianism), only that it evolved under the influence of these religions.

[paul.fr]

God is not a reason (as there is no God).

that is an extremely bold quote Batroost and my and i assume others probably dont appreciate that. You can express your opinion on this site but dont flat out say stuff like its a fact refer to it as your opinion. thx

Tony, can you prove there is a god, until you can them may we assume or have the opinion that there is no god because you can not prove it.

God uses these catastrophes to turn people to him. Sin also causes all of those. So you can't entirly blame God.

If there's a war..did God start that war? Or did people start that war?

..Or did natural sinful nature make us start that war?

If god was so almighty, why would he use war and catastrophies to get followers and believers? surely, he would use love and peace.

again i feel the quote from south park sums up what god does, if there is a god.

Stan: “Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny’s my friend. Why can’t God take someone else’s friend?”

Chef: “Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He’s all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can’t get over it, so he doesn’t care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don’t matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?”

Stan: “But then, why does God give us anything to start with?”

Chef: “Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin’ to cry about. That’s like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it’s our tears, Stan, that give God his great power.”

Stan: “I think I understand.”

[Mjhavok]

yea i agrre with u there are many things that disprove god but there are also many that prove his existance

This is a contradiction.  You cannot simultaneously prove and disprove.  What you can say is that there is evidence for, and evidence against; but proof implies an absolute for which there can be no contrary.

There is no evidence to believe in a god. Most people substitute god for a gap in their knowledge. It is true that you can't disprove god. Especially if you use the word god in a way that is ambiguous and unclear. That said just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean that the chances of it being true are 50/50. I would say given my currently knowledge of the cosmos I think it is highly unlikely a god (personal deity who answers prayers etc) exists.

[another_someone]

There is no evidence to believe in a god.

Clearly untrue.

People do not arbitrarily believe in anything, however absurd that thing might be, without any evidence.  The evidence might be superficial.  The interpretation of that evidence might be flawed.  Despite all of that, there must be some reason why that thing was believed in, and another competing idea was not believed in, and that reason must be considered to be evidence, however weak and inadequate it might be.

Most people substitute god for a gap in their knowledge.

But is that not also much of the argument for dark matter - it is to fill a gap in our understanding of the way galaxies behave?

Any theory usually starts with an attempt to fill the gap in our knowledge, and then that theory is tested.  There are serious problems with testing the God theory, which places severe limits upon what that theory may now be used for (if anything); but simply saying that the theory is bad because it was created to fill a gap in our knowledge would condemn much of the theoretical model of the universe that we have today.

Incidentally, there are also severe problems with proving string theory, or many other grand cosmological theories; but that does not of itself falsify the theory, only for the time being limit the trust one can place in them.

It is true that you can't disprove god. Especially if you use the word god in a way that is ambiguous and unclear. That said just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean that the chances of it being true are 50/50. I would say given my currently knowledge of the cosmos I think it is highly unlikely a god (personal deity who answers prayers etc) exists.

Probabilities can be used to mean two things:

• It can be used to express the number of times an event will happen.  This requires multiple occurrences of an event, and an ability to predict future occurrences of an event (e.g. throw a dice, and count the number of times you get a six).  This clearly is not a meaningful interpretation of probability when one is asking about the existence, or non existence, of a single deity.
• The more meaningful use of the word probability is as a measure of confidence in one's prediction; but such a measure can only be given a useful probability if one can quantify the likely sources of error in one's prediction.  How would you go about quantifying the sources of error in predicting the absence of a God?
  

What might reasonably be argued from a purely philosophical perspective is that the concept of a God has no scientific or engineering utility; but the philosophical response to that is to ask whether scientific and engineering utility is an adequate definition of existence?

Clearly, from an economic perspective, engineering utility is paramount in our ability to create wealth and the lifestyle we have become accustomed to, but does that make it nonetheless the only arbiter of existence?  I should stress that I do not regard this as a rhetorical question, but a genuine question - should we regard engineering and scientific utility as the sole arbiter of existence, or should we allow other values to define existence (maybe other types of existence, or to extend a single notion of existence)?

[Mjhavok]

Clearly untrue?

Can you give me the evidence for believing in a god. I don't mean reasons why people believe. I know many reasons why people believe. I am saying when you look for evidence there is a severe lack of it. It always ends up coming down to faith. The god hypothesis has nothing to back it up. At least string theory has some fancy maths.

I know the current problems in physics. Mentioning them doesn't discount what I said.

Science for me answers questions that start with the word how. How did this happen? How did that come to be? for questions that start with why then I would perhaps look elsewhere. I am under the impression that the universe doesn't owe me a why. Why are we hear? Why is there something rather than nothing?

As for quantifying the sources or error in prediction the absence of a god. I would need a strict definition of the word god. With the multitude of definitions people give that word it makes the word almost meaningless. If god is what you call the wonder of nature then I am a believer. If you define god as the god of the bible then I am an atheist and not worried at all about going to hell.

Just a quick addition. Thanks for the reply George. You always make good points.

[another_someone]

Clearly untrue?

Can you give me the evidence for believing in a god. I don't mean reasons why people believe. I know many reasons why people believe. I am saying when you look for evidence there is a severe lack of it.

I would say that substantially, reason and evidence, while not equivalent, do have a substantial overlap.

One aspect where one might look for 'evidence' is in faith healing.  The scientific answer would be the placebo effect, but if one wants to discount the scientific answer, one could look for religious answers.

A second piece of evidence might be that a society that believes in God is a more stable society, with stronger internal cohesion.  Scientific answers could look for psychological reasons for this, but again, if one discounts the scientific argument, you could give a religious argument that God rewards societies that believe in him.  Ofcourse, this same cohesion is why religion is often blamed for wars.

Another social argument for God (and probably one of the most important, in historic terms) is with regard to the hierarchy of power.  In a society where each individual is answerable to his master, a serf might be answerable to his lord, and a lord is answerable to his king, and the king must then be answerable to someone, and that someone would be God.  It is a logical progression. It must be so, since it was regarded that a man without a master was a man without a place in society, and thus a man without allegiance, and a man without morality; so if the king was to be regarded as a moral person, a person with a place in society, so he must have a master.

The point is that I am not saying that the evidence is unanswerable, only that the evidence clearly does exist, and did (at least in the pre-scientific age) give real reason to believe in God.

It always ends up coming down to faith. The god hypothesis has nothing to back it up. At least string theory has some fancy maths.

Having a mathematically constructed deity would not make the deity any more real.

Science for me answers questions that start with the word how. How did this happen? How did that come to be? for questions that start with why then I would perhaps look elsewhere. I am under the impression that the universe doesn't owe me a why. Why are we hear? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Yes, I would agree with this; as science also seeks to avoid asking the question 'who'.

The point is that in a society that is very person focused 'who' is an important question.  The modern world is a very materialistic world, where 'what' and 'how' are important, and 'who' and 'why' is totally unimportant.  Whether it is a good or a bad thing that we have moved from a world where the thing mattered less than the person, to one where the person is largely irrelevant, and the thing is the all important, might be speculated upon, but as a matter of fact, that is what has happened, and it is that shift from 'who' to 'what' that has moved us from 'God' to the Big Bang.

As for quantifying the sources or error in prediction the absence of a god. I would need a strict definition of the word god. With the multitude of definitions people give that word it makes the word almost meaningless. If god is what you call the wonder of nature then I am a believer. If you define god as the god of the bible then I am an atheist and not worried at all about going to hell.

Again, I do not disagree with any of the above; I was merely saying that making judgements as to whether the probability was 50/50, more so, or less so, was itself meaningless.

Just a quick addition. Thanks for the reply George. You always make good points.

Thank you  [] [^]

[paul.fr]

Lets bring this debate to a close:
No scientist can claim that there is no GOD.

As Feynman said- 'If it does not comply with experiment it is not science'-

but he also said "There are a lot of tricks of the mind and human perception that cause people to believe things they have no evidence for"

No Evidence, show us your evidence that there is a god.

WHERE SCIENTISTS IS YOUR EXPERIMENT TO PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST- You do not have one- you have no proff- No experiment- So that being the case any scientist that says there is no god- Is really not a scientist- Point in Fact.

No, No ,No. you must first show us the evidence that he/she does exist, then let us examine your evidence.

Atleast Feynman realised he had been a moron and repented.

So, Feynman was a moron eh. How are you qualified to call such a man such things? i Guess you have many papers published, a nobel prize, work at los alamos. I never knew you were so qualified.

and JESUS is free- to be who he wants to be- who are any of you to say how he will act or what he will say or do or dress- You all have some deluded fantasy of Jesus- Hopefully some of you will look when the time comes with open eyes and a loving heart. and not be blinded by your illusion.

P.s No one can garentee you a place in heaven- anyone says they can is working for satan. God decides no-one else.

Jesus is not free. you have collection plates and contributions. Now some religions do guarantee a place in heaven, so are they not actually religions?

[paul.fr]

Paul grow up. Its not my problem if you dont understand what I have said. And to say what you just did, shows you havent understood.

Jolly, yet again you have to stoop to a personal attack if someone does not agree with your position. Then what do you do? You go back and alter and add to your previous post!

How many times have you done this? if you look at your posts, a high percentage of them have an "edit". why edit your posts when you have received a reply? why not simply make a new post?

not only does this affect the reader, it shows that you can not hold your argument so resort to altering your original text to suit or make the replier look stupid.

[Mjhavok]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden or proof doesn't lay with the non believer. The person making the claim must provide the proof.

[paul.fr]

has nothing to do with that I see spelling mistakes and add to comments to improve them others edit theres as well- your comment is unvalid- trying to make out im cheating or somthing- silly I do not alter my text I correct the spelling mistakes and add to the text- on occasion I swap words around as it reads better. But then if you dont bother reading it whats the difference. 

I do not see the point in creating loads of new boxes it makes the forum huge- when it does not need to be and gives you a huge post count- I could careless about my post count.

spelling errors are one thing. i will be the first to admit that at times my spelling is so atrocious that i have to go back and correct it.

But i do not alter the text or make additions, swap words around!!! i do believe that a few posts ago you added:


"Marx, Freud, Einstien all jewish All I believe- belived in God-
Marxs attacked how religion was used by the elites to supress the poor- he did not attack God persay. Einstien said he didnt believe in a personnel God- but that could really be seen as him saying God is for everyone, not just the jews, he just said it in a vague way to stop himself being attacked by jews.

Decartes and Hume both believed in God- Fathers both of modern philsophy and impericism.... The list gos on and on- But then as a scientist you cannot deny God- to do so is unscientific- A leap of faith- There is no evidence against- and some towards- Your free- you choose. "


that is not spell checking or altering a few words!

[Mjhavok]

Yes so you claim there is no god- prove it- its the same.

I don't claim there is no god. I have lack of a belief in a god. With my current knowledge and all available evidence I see no reason to have that belief. This is different from saying "I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD"

Theists are the ones making the claim. I don't go around trying to prove that things don't exist. I don't go around trying to justify the things I DON'T believe in. That would be preposterous.

[Mjhavok]

My point exactly.

Strange. When I read what you wrote that isn't the impression I got.

[paul.fr]

Yes I added it as I felt it was needed- who the hell are you to tell me how I should relay information to people- Not just you read this- Some people will not read this stuff till next week- I will post as I see fit thank you!

You dont like it thats your problem. Tell me how to post? Who are you exactly? What gives you the right to tell me how to post?

Rather than making a whole new box I add on- to things that relate- as I think of things to say. That way its all together. not all over the place- Then I answer you complaints- and add on to them as I have new or better understood answers. DEAL WITH IT.

It is not my fault that you do not understand what I say then put up silly posts, thats your problem- not mine- Keep digging your hole- please...

In what part of my text did i tell you how to write your posts? Nowhere. All i am saying is that by constantly adding, and deleting, whole paragraphs once replies have been made is unfair to the replier and later reader of the topic.

How can i understand what you are trying to say, when the post i reply to changes?

What hole and i digging?

i see you even edited the post to which i am replying!

[Batroost]

YOUR NOT BETTER OR MORE INTELIGENT THAT ANYONE ELSE- YOU JUST THINK YOU ARE.

BY the same assertion I would refute:

Alot of christians feel they speak with God- They know they do-.

Why is this position a valid one and yet saying that there is no god is seen as an attack on faith? If you truly believe what you say you beleive then nothing I or anybody else says here will shake your faith. Well done, you are then a convincing christian.

BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! A scientist should never hold true to dogma. A model is only as good as the current evidence. A theory can always be changed or abandoned if new evidence presents itself, or a lack of evidence is apparent when an experiment is performed.

A discussion on science uses evidence to support models of the world. Where there is no evidence there is no discussion - there is only bigotry.

[Ben6789]

jolly! Paul fr.! please calm down!

BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! .

That's right. It doesn't. That's why this topic is so popular.

Science and religon never mix. Never will. They contradict. Water and oil. But that's why this has 19 pages. Everyone's chosen a side. Everyone knows their reasons. But this topic will go on forever, just as tony6789 wanted. "Prove he is real!" "Prove he isn't!" It all comes down to opinion in this one.

[Mjhavok]

Paul grow up. Its not my problem if you dont understand what I have said. And to say what you just did, shows you havent understood.

The evidence I was refering to would be the books- as well as the religious community- Alot of christians feel they speak with God- They know they do- But how do I prove that to you- You would just say they were delusional or somthing. To love is to know- Its individual- Proff denies faith.

There is no proff to prove god does not exsist- there is some elimentary evidence to suggest that there is a God. Ergo more in favor than against.
Not evidence against- a tiny bit for. But no scientist should be claiming things they have no evidence for- So you cannot say there is no god- as a scientist- as a person you may.

Personal revelation isn't evidence. People who have temporal lobe seizures have profound religious experiences.

[paul.fr]

"Prove he is real!" "Prove he isn't!" It all comes down to opinion in this one.

Not really, if you happily go along your normal days business with nothing to worry about that's fine. Suddenly some nutter approaches you and tells you there is a god. you say "wow, i will believe you if you can just prove it".

The onus is on the one making the first claim, IE that god exists, not the disbeliever. The argument only came about because of the claim that there was a god, the claim has to be proven.

[Mjhavok]

jolly! Paul fr.! please calm down!

BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! .

That's right. It doesn't. That's why this topic is so popular.

Science and religon never mix. Never will. They contradict. Water and oil. But that's why this has 19 pages. Everyone's chosen a side. Everyone knows their reasons. But this topic will go on forever, just as tony6789 wanted. "Prove he is real!" "Prove he isn't!" It all comes down to opinion in this one.

This is because one is a dogmatic ideology and the other has a self correcting mechanism.

[paul.fr]

The evidence I was refering to would be the books- as well as the religious community- Alot of christians feel they speak with God- They know they do- But how do I prove that to you- You would just say they were delusional or somthing.

Lets take, Joseph Smith shall we. He was clearly delusional and a fraud. Books eh, have you read the book of mormon! what outragious and ludicrus claims he makes. Now if you want to follow his teachings and live a happy contented life, that's fine by me. But don't tell me this man was not a fraud.

look at the evidence:

Joseph smith believes/said

I was out in the woods, praying I was asking God if I should be a Protestant, or a Catholic, or what? And suddenly God and Jesus appeared before me.  And they said I should start my own church, because none of the others had it right.

Last night, a Native America angel told me where I could find another testament of Jesus Christ, so I went out to the woods. I dug around all morning where the angel had told me to look. he found a stone box
 Inside the stone box, he found the magical seer stones. Under that, he found four gold plates written in strange writing

he was not allowed to take them. You see, after he found the plates, the angel Moroni appeared to me again and said that I am not allowed to show the plates, or the seer stones, to anybody. Because first I must translate what's written on the plates into English, so you can all read it!

i don't have the will to go on, but clarly he was a nutter!

[Ben6789]

Yeah and where he found them just happens to be where the twin towers are..were...