The Nature Of God:
- Thread starter Gaidin109
- Start date
Really?
Most of the time he's either a petty tyrant who seems to enjoy torturing his creations, or as a collection of selfish gits who's daily lives closely resemble EastEnders but with more oiled chests.
Firstly, I agree that quite a few muslims want to make a fuss about anything.
When it comes to religion though, muslims are very sensitive. If you were to make a cartoon picture of God or a prophet, it wouldn't bother me personally but I think it does show a lack of respect there. I think sometimes these things are done deliberately to provoke a negative response, which they always get.
Only if you take it literally.
His image could be his spirit and intent he gave man the same curiosity and potential he and or his species had.
the same quest to experiment and explore to find new things.
Eg we've already shown that we wish to "play god" or ape him in the sense we have started modifying existing life in the process of learning to create our own newly designed life.
Fun fact.
There are less human cells in your body than non human ones
If qi is to be believed
Just what part of the word "God" don't you understand? Even if he didn't have his reasons, why should he be bound by us?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I believe they stick to prosecuting the temporal rather than the immortal and even then they're not always that good at apprehending those charged so I don't fancy their chances against an omnipotent being.
I've got no idea whether a deity even exists, I've heard and read about more than a few ideas of what god is but I couldn't tell you which of them (if any) is right. For all I know they might all be right and can be resolved together as they all apply to the same deity but in different forms.
If there is a god then it is not the god of any of the religions. This seems obvious to me due to the the lack of a single unified religion among other things. Why would an entity capable of creating the universe be interested in the lives and affairs of creatures that have existed for only 0.001% of the age of the universe? Religion is a fallacy. God is not required for the existence of the universe.
I see religion as a means of explaining unknowns and reassuring ourselves of our importance and imagining dead loved ones being content in heaven. Worse than this, organised religion is a means of influencing and controlling the masses.
Personally I believe that on a fundamental level existence is meaningless. This is not true on a human level though, we can give life our own meaning and aims. Additionally religion is not required for a moral compass, obviously it has effected the current moral landscape in the majority of countries.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
~ Epicurus
I see religion as a means of explaining unknowns and reassuring ourselves of our importance and imagining dead loved ones being content in heaven. Worse than this, organised religion is a means of influencing and controlling the masses.
Personally I believe that on a fundamental level existence is meaningless. This is not true on a human level though, we can give life our own meaning and aims. Additionally religion is not required for a moral compass, obviously it has effected the current moral landscape in the majority of countries.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
~ Epicurus
Or he is able and willing but can't without removing free will and creating robots.
When it comes to religion though, muslims are very sensitive. If you were to make a cartoon picture of God or a prophet, it wouldn't bother me personally but I think it does show a lack of respect there. I think sometimes these things are done deliberately to provoke a negative response, which they always get.
In my opinion, muslims need to learn to be less sensitive when in a non-muslim dominated country. Most (non-muslim) people in this country have been bought up to believe that respect is earned not just given, so if a lack of respect is perceived to be shown by the drawing of a picture.... tough - our muslim friends need to learn to grow a thick skin and learn to ignore things that wind them up but the rest of the country would ignore. Funny pictures of Jesus can be found in all sorts of satirical literature but you don't see Christians trying to murder the artists in question - the most you'll see is a strongly written letter to the BBC or something.
Yes some groups in this country do things just to provoke a response and our muslim friends seem all too eager to provide that response - instead of just ignoring the idiots who are trying to cause offense. My parents always told me to ignore people who were trying to wind me up because when they see they can't get to you they soon give up and it's true. Perhaps we need to relearn this valuable lesson that our society as a whole seems to have forgotten.
Is it more important that we prove God's existence or that we believe of his existence.
Personally I don't know if God exists, (not in the archetypal white beard dude sense) but somehow I believe that 'something' does, its just convenient I call that something God.
I don't buy into the dogma of organised religions, for me its a personal thing not shrouded in pomp and worship. There's something there and it aint me.
Personally I don't know if God exists, (not in the archetypal white beard dude sense) but somehow I believe that 'something' does, its just convenient I call that something God.
I don't buy into the dogma of organised religions, for me its a personal thing not shrouded in pomp and worship. There's something there and it aint me.
Last edited:
It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a god by definition. It is due to this technicality that I call myself agnostic rather than atheist. The reason is that there is no means by which to test the hypothesis of god existing, in the same way that I can't prove or disprove that their is a teapot orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy. Their is no telescope with the required resolution and likely never will be therefore it is not possible to test it.
That's exactly my point. Why do we feel the need to?
The practical individual of today is a stickler for facts and results. Nevertheless, the twentieth century readily accepts theories of all kinds, provided they are firmly grounded in fact. We have numerous theories, for example, about electricity. Everybody believes them without a murmur of doubt. Why this ready acceptance? Simply because it is impossible to explain what we see, feel, direct, and use, without a reasonable assumption as a starting point.
Everybody nowadays, believes in scores of assumptions for which there is good evidence, but no perfect visual proof. And does not science demonstrate that visual proof is the weakest proof? It is being constantly revealed, as mankind studies the material world, that outward appearances are not inward reality at all.
To illustrate:
The prosaic steel girder is a mass of electrons whirling around each other at incredible speed. These tiny bodies are governed by precise laws, and these laws hold true throughout the material world, Science tells us so. We have no reason to doubt it. When, however, the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that underneath the material world and life as we see it, there is an all powerful, guiding, creative intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface and we laboriously set out to convince ourselves it isn’t so. We read wordy books and indulge in windy arguments, thinking we believe this universe needs no God to explain it. Were our contentions true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.
Sorry I misread the beginning of your post as 'It is' rather than 'Is it', resulting in my reply
I agree that since it is not possible in principle to apply the scientific method to the existence of god we shouldn't try or fixate on trying.
I'm not sure what angle you are coming from with your steel girder example, are you trying to reinforce the idea of the existence of god?
On a fundamental level this is what I believe, but I also don't see it as a problem. On a human level we can make our lives as exciting or as dull as we like. We should see it as liberating that we are not tied down by religious dogmas. I am an existentialist if you will.
These videos although dated have interesting content on the scientific method and way of thinking:
