Does God exist?

[Conscentia]

The Bible is a collection of books that have been written, rewritten, and expanded upon for centuries.
See the relevant link in my signature.
Alternatively, the url can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

That video makes me laugh.... every time.

Why?

[Menassa]

That video makes me laugh.... every time.

Why?

Because it assumes: Different names=Different Gods.

If it would walk into most synagogues and ask some one: "Why does God have so many different names."

The Answer would most likely be: "They are each showing his attributes, Adonai shows his Lordship, Elohim shows his divine Judgement etc."

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

because we were dangerously derailing another thread for the last 15 pages...

Do you believe that a God exists?

When the word "God" is clearly defined, no.

[Conscentia]

Why?

Because it assumes: Different names=Different Gods.

If it would walk into most synagogues and ask some one: "Why does God have so many different names."

The Answer would most likely be: "They are each showing his attributes, Adonai shows his Lordship, Elohim shows his divine Judgement etc."

Clearly you weren't listening properly when you watched it. The various Canaanite gods were different gods. They were decided to be synonyms later in history.

[Menassa]

Because it assumes: Different names=Different Gods.

If it would walk into most synagogues and ask some one: "Why does God have so many different names."

The Answer would most likely be: "They are each showing his attributes, Adonai shows his Lordship, Elohim shows his divine Judgement etc."

Clearly you weren't listening properly when you watched it. The various Canaanite gods were different gods. They were decided to be synonyms later in history.

So he's not saying the plurality for the Names of God shows plurality of Gods?

[Conscentia]

Clearly you weren't listening properly when you watched it. The various Canaanite gods were different gods. They were decided to be synonyms later in history.

So he's not saying the plurality for the Names of God shows plurality of Gods?

I do not recall him doing that at all.

[Menassa]

So he's not saying the plurality for the Names of God shows plurality of Gods?

I do not recall him doing that at all.

That was my impression.

"We first see a God _____ who seems like a nice God."

"Then we see a God ____ who is a warlike God."

Really an entire pantheon is in The Bible!

Hmmm... I must have missed something.

[Metaphysical Plains]

I do not recall him doing that at all.

That was my impression.

"We first see a God _____ who seems like a nice God."

"Then we see a God ____ who is a warlike God."

Really an entire pantheon is in The Bible!

Hmmm... I must have missed something.

The History of God Atheism video??? yea its basically making that conclusion.

[Menassa]

That was my impression.

"We first see a God _____ who seems like a nice God."

"Then we see a God ____ who is a warlike God."

Really an entire pantheon is in The Bible!

Hmmm... I must have missed something.

The History of God Atheism video??? yea its basically making that conclusion.

Which of course there is a simple answer too... but then again... we must take into account that it is a YouTube Video... which means we know little about the Author and what they've done as: "Research"

[Conscentia]

I do not recall him doing that at all.

That was my impression.

"We first see a God _____ who seems like a nice God."

"Then we see a God ____ who is a warlike God."

Really an entire pantheon is in The Bible!

Hmmm... I must have missed something.

You got times for those quotes?

[Menassa]

That was my impression.

"We first see a God _____ who seems like a nice God."

"Then we see a God ____ who is a warlike God."

Really an entire pantheon is in The Bible!

Hmmm... I must have missed something.

You got times for those quotes?

No....

It's more paraphrasing really to what I took away from the video.

[Conscentia]

The History of God Atheism video??? yea its basically making that conclusion.

Which of course there is a simple answer too... but then again... we must take into account that it is a YouTube Video... which means we know little about the Author and what they've done as: "Research"

Well Wikipedia & it's sources certainly seems to support the video.

[Conscentia]

You got times for those quotes?

No....
It's more paraphrasing really to what I took away from the video.

You seem to have taken the wrong thing.

[Menassa]

No....
It's more paraphrasing really to what I took away from the video.

You seem to taken the wrong thing.

2 people taken away one thing verses one person taken away something else?

This may be a small 'appeal to numbers' or it may not be.

Which of course there is a simple answer too... but then again... we must take into account that it is a YouTube Video... which means we know little about the Author and what they've done as: "Research"

Well Wikipedia & it's sources certainly seems to support the video.

Wikipedia only gives you answers... I was unaware it took sides.

[Anvilonia]

There's no way to know, but even if the Christian God was the almighty God, I would not worship them.

[Menassa]

There's no way to know, but even if the Christian God was the almighty God, I would not worship them.

Well that certainly rules out.....

1/1000 Gods.

[Dyakovo]

because we were dangerously derailing another thread for the last 15 pages...

Do you believe that a God exists?

I believe that there are no supernatural deities. Science has better explained away all the various things that theists claim to be evidence for their god. And furthermore, considering the immense human suffering that exists today, a god would either have to be malevolent or incompetent:

"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

Furthermore, I simply feel that those making the claim that a god exists have the burden of proof on their shoulders to solidly prove that there is a god, before I would even consider believing in such a thing. I do not consider "the <insert holy book here> say so" to be legitimate evidence, because that begs the question: why is that holy book relevant?

This post will probably be expanded as I elaborate more on my beliefs.

Your thoughts?

----

You can also use this thread to debate the merits of various religions, or religion in general.

Considering the fact that there exist absolutely no verifiable evidence that any deity exists, I see no reason to believe that any do.

[Aukstralia]

I was raised a Christian, but I am now a Scientologist.

We definitely have a concept of God. This concept is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic.

[Ainin]

I was raised a Christian, but I am now a Scientologist.

We definitely have a concept of God. This concept is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic.

Scientology?

[Aequalitia]

I was raised a Christian, but I am now a Scientologist.

We definitely have a concept of God. This concept is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic.

Well, scientologist on the NS forums are rare, but less rare then deists...

Gosh, why does almost nobody on the world known deism

[Mavorpen]

I was raised a Christian, but I am now a Scientologist.

We definitely have a concept of God. This concept is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic.

Scientology?

He has three posts.

Do you really need anymore information?

[Genivaria]

I was raised a Christian, but I am now a Scientologist.

We definitely have a concept of God. This concept is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic.

Oh you're going to be very amusing I can tell.

[The Rich Port]

I was raised a Christian, but I am now a Scientologist.

We definitely have a concept of God. This concept is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic.

Oh you're going to be very amusing I can tell.

Amusing, annoying, same thing, I suppose.

[Conscentia]

Well Wikipedia & it's sources certainly seems to support the video.

Wikipedia only gives you answers... I was unaware it took sides.

It generally takes the side of those with the facts.

[Menassa]

Wikipedia only gives you answers... I was unaware it took sides.

It generally takes the side of those with the facts.

I feel an article that is supposed to relay information should not be taking sides at all.