Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Polgrusan]

Are you sure that is not the placebo effect?

or LSD?

No, I just lie in bed and pray.

[Sakash]

we are speaking about faith not logic. what you are showing is biology. Faith is not a biological concept, neither is Love. Try http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos

Did you read the link title at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

You've just been proven wrong and you ignore it?

That's nice if you want to believe love isn't explained by biology when that has been proven beyond a doubt. You can also feel free to believe that the earth is flat.

Seems that you have not read the link i have given. It proves that biological explanation is wrong. biocentric theory explains that biology is not responsible for consciousness but consciousness is responsible for all emotions and biological responses in the body. So love is created by our consciousness and our body on responds chemically to such love. biological theory you propose was never able to predict who a person will love and whom not, so its worthless.

[Sociobiology]

what passage are you talking about?
how does a child with loving parents starve?

You said God kills the children as a punishment for the parents. If the parents are gone, how does a child survive?

Read it again
"to punish the parents"

and even with your misunderstanding nothing in that sentence indicates the parents absence.

[Luveria]

Did you read the link title at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

You've just been proven wrong and you ignore it?

That's nice if you want to believe love isn't explained by biology when that has been proven beyond a doubt. You can also feel free to believe that the earth is flat.

Seems that you have not read the link i have given. It proves that biological explanation is wrong. biocentric theory explains that biology is not responsible for consciousness but consciousness is responsible for all emotions and biological responses in the body. So love is created by our consciousness and our body on responds chemically to such love. biological theory you propose was never able to predict who a person will love and whom not, so its worthless.

And your link is some crackpot's opinion?

I have provided evidence you are wrong about love not being entirely explained by biology. Your response was providing an opinion from a crackpot scientist that isn't taken seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

[Sociobiology]

Did you read the link title at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

You've just been proven wrong and you ignore it?

That's nice if you want to believe love isn't explained by biology when that has been proven beyond a doubt. You can also feel free to believe that the earth is flat.

Seems that you have not read the link i have given. It proves that biological explanation is wrong.

as it is not an actual source it proves nothing.

biocentric theory explains that biology is not responsible for consciousness but consciousness is responsible for all emotions and biological responses in the body.

no it doesn't
go learn some real biology.

[Polgrusan]

You said God kills the children as a punishment for the parents. If the parents are gone, how does a child survive?

Read it again
"to punish the parents"

and even with your misunderstanding nothing in that sentence indicates the parents absence.

Well even in that case, the children would be saved from the curse of their parents, who's ways would have made the child go to hell. Either way, the children would be happier than if God had left them on Earth.

[Norstal]

Read it again
"to punish the parents"

and even with your misunderstanding nothing in that sentence indicates the parents absence.

Well even in that case, the children would be saved from the curse of their parents, who's ways would have made the child go to hell. Either way, the children would be happier than if God had left them on Earth.

You're that sure that the child will go to hell? What are you, God?

[Luveria]

Read it again
"to punish the parents"

and even with your misunderstanding nothing in that sentence indicates the parents absence.

Well even in that case, the children would be saved from the curse of their parents, who's ways would have made the child go to hell. Either way, the children would be happier than if God had left them on Earth.

No, I doubt that, as a dead person does not feel any happiness.

[Sociobiology]

Read it again
"to punish the parents"

and even with your misunderstanding nothing in that sentence indicates the parents absence.

Well even in that case, the children would be saved from the curse of their parents, who's ways would have made the child go to hell.

except as unbaptized they go anyway.
I was unaware loving parents were a curse.
and again saving them from the hell you are sending them too still counts against you. Because you could just not send them to hell.

Either way, the children would be happier than if God had left them on Earth.

not in the slightest.

Also by your argument we should be taking children away from all religious parents because atheists are statistically happier.
So its a bad argument to begin with.

[Sociobiology]

Well even in that case, the children would be saved from the curse of their parents, who's ways would have made the child go to hell. Either way, the children would be happier than if God had left them on Earth.

No, I doubt that, as a dead person does not feel any happiness.

this is a hypothetical.
Even in the fictitious setting of the book the character described still acts immoraly

[Sakash]

And your link is some crackpot's opinion?

I have provided evidence you are wrong about love not being entirely explained by biology. Your response was providing an opinion from a crackpot scientist that isn't taken seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

Have you read the book called biocentrism by Lanza. I have.
What the article says is that there is mixed response because scientists want to be spoon feeding about everything. It is a concept which gives new direction to science and explains many things which physics cant. for example why does quantum mechanic wave function collapse on conscious observation? why does photon turn in to particle from wave when someone is observing and remains wave if no one observes?

He is trying to explain the role of consciousness in physics which is a new concept and will take time to mature. but it is in right direction. to answer your question in the first place, biological explanation you have show is worthless as it predicts nothing. you wont be able to know why and with whom you will fall in love with those chemicals.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you understand what natural evil is?

Hurricanes, Disease, Famine, Earthquakes, Radiation?

Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes that reason is not obvious to us at first or even at all. But there is always a reason. And it's usually to teach us.

Right. And when my ten-year-old daughter's best friend since they were babies died of brain cancer, that was teaching her the lesson that...?

Or does the god of your theology murder children just to teach other people a lesson? Because if so - that's pretty fucked up, and if it was a person doing it, we'd call them a monster, a psychopath, and a terrorist.

[Polgrusan]

Well even in that case, the children would be saved from the curse of their parents, who's ways would have made the child go to hell.

except as unbaptized they go anyway.
I was unaware loving parents were a curse.
and again saving them from the hell you are sending them too still counts against you. Because you could just not send them to hell.

Either way, the children would be happier than if God had left them on Earth.

not in the slightest.

Also by your argument we should be taking children away from all religious parents because atheists are statistically happier.
So its a bad argument to begin with.

Why would God punish good parents? The children got away from BAD parents. Atheists are statistically happier, because if they're extremely unhappy, they can commit suicide without a worry. They also don't believe in an afterlife, so they try to live the best life possible, a happy life.

[Grave_n_idle]

Natural Evil.

Please explain it.

Ever read Revelation. Evil will end. First evil came, then God made it powerless, then God will finally eradicate it.

If I was god, I'd eradicate it first. There really needs to be a recount or something - this is the problem with unelected dictators.

[Menassa]

Ever read Revelation. Evil will end. First evil came, then God made it powerless, then God will finally eradicate it.

If I was god, I'd eradicate it first. There really needs to be a recount or something - this is the problem with unelected dictators.

According to Isaiah, God created Evil.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why not?

Whenever I pray, I suddenly feel happy, even though I believe the Tribulation is coming soon. It's as if God takes over my mind. Even if he isn't real, it feels great.

Have you ever seen a TV show called "Dexter"?

Whenever he kills, he suddenly feels happy. Even if it's not meaningful, he feels great.

The effect you describe is not evidence of 'god'.

[Grave_n_idle]

If I was god, I'd eradicate it first. There really needs to be a recount or something - this is the problem with unelected dictators.

According to Isaiah, God created Evil.

Oh, absolutely - if you have an Original Creation god, then all things must logically stem, originally, from it.

It's kind of inherent in the job description.

To be honest, I've really never understood the need for people to try to turn the Old Testament into a Zoroastrian duality.

[Grave_n_idle]

except as unbaptized they go anyway.
I was unaware loving parents were a curse.
and again saving them from the hell you are sending them too still counts against you. Because you could just not send them to hell.


not in the slightest.

Also by your argument we should be taking children away from all religious parents because atheists are statistically happier.
So its a bad argument to begin with.

Why would God punish good parents? The children got away from BAD parents. Atheists are statistically happier, because if they're extremely unhappy, they can commit suicide without a worry. They also don't believe in an afterlife, so they try to live the best life possible, a happy life.

So religious people don't live the best life they could?

Your arguments for religion are actually better arguments against it, my friend.

[Menassa]

According to Isaiah, God created Evil.

Oh, absolutely - if you have an Original Creation god, then all things must logically stem, originally, from it.

It's kind of inherent in the job description.

To be honest, I've really never understood the need for people to try to turn the Old Testament into a Zoroastrian duality.

To attract the Zoroastrians?

[Luveria]

And your link is some crackpot's opinion?

I have provided evidence you are wrong about love not being entirely explained by biology. Your response was providing an opinion from a crackpot scientist that isn't taken seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe

Have you read the book called biocentrism by Lanza. I have.
What the article says is that there is mixed response because scientists want to be spoon feeding about everything. It is a concept which gives new direction to science and explains many things which physics cant. for example why does quantum mechanic wave function collapse on conscious observation? why does photon turn in to particle from wave when someone is observing and remains wave if no one observes?

He is trying to explain the role of consciousness in physics which is a new concept and will take time to mature. but it is in right direction. to answer your question in the first place, biological explanation you have show is worthless as it predicts nothing. you wont be able to know why and with whom you will fall in love with those chemicals.

Yo, Grave_n_idle, can you help me out with this biocentric nonsense?

If I was god, I'd eradicate it first. There really needs to be a recount or something - this is the problem with unelected dictators.

According to Isaiah, God created Evil.

I am not questioning your knowledge, but I am curious of the verse(s) mentioning that.

Ever read Revelation. Evil will end. First evil came, then God made it powerless, then God will finally eradicate it.

If I was god, I'd eradicate it first. There really needs to be a recount or something - this is the problem with unelected dictators.

I were God, I'd probably be sadistically torturing all of humanity while making half-assed and intentionally flawed attempts to make them worship me, and sending to hell anyone who notices there is no evidence for my existence.

[Kaztropol]

'God is dead,' Nick said. 'They found his carcass in 2019. Floating in space near Alpha.'
'They found the remains of an organism advanced several thousand times over what we are,' Charley said. 'And evidently could create habitable worlds and populate them with living organisms, derived from itself. But that doesn't prove it was God.'

Philip K. Dick, taking something that many sci-fi writers would base a whole series of books on, and having it be an unimportant fact in a story.

[Menassa]

According to Isaiah, God created Evil.

I am not questioning your knowledge, but I am curious of the verse(s) mentioning that.

Isaiah 45:7, I wold advise using any translation other than the NIV.

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, absolutely - if you have an Original Creation god, then all things must logically stem, originally, from it.

It's kind of inherent in the job description.

To be honest, I've really never understood the need for people to try to turn the Old Testament into a Zoroastrian duality.

To attract the Zoroastrians?

That's a little cynical, my friend.

[Luveria]

I am not questioning your knowledge, but I am curious of the verse(s) mentioning that.

Isaiah 45:7, I wold advise using any translation other than the NIV.

Posting the King James version here.

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

That presents a problem for certain people in this thread.

[Menassa]

Isaiah 45:7, I wold advise using any translation other than the NIV.

Posting the King James version here.

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

That presents a problem for certain people in this thread.

As it should.

To attract the Zoroastrians?

That's a little cynical, my friend.

*shrug* I'm a little cynical.