Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[People Who Say Ni]

Could somebody PLEASE tell me what spirituality even is? Because right now, the only arguments I'm seeing FOR the existence of God are "we have faith and love and a spirit... maaann."
Also, those sort of arguments WOULDN'T work if I could coherently work out their meaning because STATING that love and spirits mean there is a God is terrible logic because there is no necessity for God in the presence of love and "spirituality" that I know of.

Furthermore, if you are going to base your belief of God on faith the way I think it should be defined, "trust or belief in the lack of evidence", then you don't really have a reason, and saying you believe in God because you have faith is like basing belief in the Flying Spahgetti Monster on the absence of evidence for the FSM - faith is a euphemism for error. You will also find that atheism is both more intellectually honest and more beneficial than theism. I will elaborate if prompted.

[Sociobiology]

Faith is a form of spirituality. Not everyone needs faith to satisfy their spirituality.

Faith & hope are the foundation of life.

actually Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen are the foundation of life.

Without them there is no spirituality.

and so?

Spirituality is empowerment of Spirit which is creates faith and hope.

Define spirit.

If there no faith there is no spiritual benefit.

and if there is no spirit to benefit?

No one can help a hopeless person.

Modern medicine would disagree.

One has to find hope and faith within self to grow spiritually.

so you need spirit to grow spiritually, circular logic much?

[Conscentia]

Faith & hope are the foundation of life.

actually Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen are the foundation of life.
[...]

Phosphorus is important too.

[Sociobiology]

actually Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen are the foundation of life.
[...]

Phosphorus is important too.

That's write they amended the mnemonic didn't they, it's CHONP no.
You get an A.

[Conscentia]

Phosphorus is important too.

That's write right they amended the mnemonic didn't they, it's CHONP no.
You get an A.

CHNOPS - actually. There is also Sulphur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHON

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Problem with Christianity Number 257689: Christians believe that God knows everything, and is Omnibenevolent. If he knows everything, then does he know how to feel lust, which in your terms, is a sin? Then he is not Omnibenevolent. If he does not know it, he does not know everything.

[Rapidblaze]

faith and hope are one of the most important things i treasure, and though it may not be God, and although this 'faith' may be manmade, it still instils a sense for me a basic morality in where i can go forward from its foundations.

[Conscentia]

Problem with Christianity Number 257689: Christians believe that God knows everything, and is Omnibenevolent. If he knows everything, then does he know how to feel lust, which in your terms, is a sin? Then he is not Omnibenevolent. If he does not know it, he does not know everything.

Emotions aren't known, they are experienced.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Problem with Christianity Number 257689: Christians believe that God knows everything, and is Omnibenevolent. If he knows everything, then does he know how to feel lust, which in your terms, is a sin? Then he is not Omnibenevolent. If he does not know it, he does not know everything.

Emotions aren't known, they are experienced.

Yes, but lust is something you know that you feel.

[Conscentia]

Emotions aren't known, they are experienced.

Yes, but lust is something you know that you feel.

And God would know that he didn't feel it.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Yes, but lust is something you know that you feel.

And God would know that he didn't feel it.

Then he does not know everything, as one feels lust, they know it.

[Conscentia]

And God would know that he didn't feel it.

Then he does not know everything, as one feels lust, they know it.

Emotions are felt, not known. Whether or not they have been felt is the thing that is known, and God would know what he is not feeling.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Then he does not know everything, as one feels lust, they know it.

Emotions are felt, not know. Whether or not they have been felt is the thing that is known, and God would know what he is not feeling.

That argument is BS. So when your angry, you don't know your angry? When your happy, you don't know your happy?

[Conscentia]

Emotions are felt, not know. Whether or not they have been felt is the thing that is known, and God would know what he is not feeling.

That argument is BS. So when your angry, you don't know your angry? When your happy, you don't know your happy?

I'm saying the opposite, and I don't how you've managed to misinterpret what I've said.

One feels anger. One does not know anger. When anger is experienced, it enters one's knowledge that the experience is occurring - the emotion itself is not what enters knowledge. One has knowledge of the emotion, it is not the emotion that is the knowledge.
One also knows when one is not feeling something. I know that I am not feeling excited right now.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

That argument is BS. So when your angry, you don't know your angry? When your happy, you don't know your happy?

I'm saying the opposite, and I don't how you've managed to misinterpret what I've said.

One feels anger. One does not know anger. When anger is experienced, it enters one's knowledge that the experience is occurring - the emotion itself is not what enters knowledge. One has knowledge of the emotion, it is not the emotion that is the knowledge.
One also knows when one is not feeling something. I know that I am not feeling excited right now.

Okay, then so God knows that if he's feeling lust, he's having lust. That changed nothing.

[Conscentia]

I'm saying the opposite, and I don't how you've managed to misinterpret what I've said.
One feels anger. One does not know anger. When anger is experienced, it enters one's knowledge that the experience is occurring - the emotion itself is not what enters knowledge. One has knowledge of the emotion, it is not the emotion that is the knowledge.
One also knows when one is not feeling something. I know that I am not feeling excited right now.

Okay, then so God knows that if he's feeling lust, he's having lust. That changed nothing.

But God does not necessarily feel lust. God would not lose any knowledge by not feeling the emotion.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Okay, then so God knows that if he's feeling lust, he's having lust. That changed nothing.

But God does not necessarily feel lust. God would not lose any knowledge by not feeling the emotion.

He would, as the knowledge of what lust feels like would be lost.

[DesAnges]

But God does not necessarily feel lust. God would not lose any knowledge by not feeling the emotion.

He would, as the knowledge of what lust feels like would be lost.

Unless they at some point knew lust and then someone reached into their brain and removed the knowledge but not the emotion, you cannot "lose" knowledge of emotion.

[Ashmoria]

No one could ever truly know until they die, perhaps never /thread

If you won't find out until you die, why bother believing they exist while still alive?

AND

if the Mormon version of the Christian god is true youll get a chance to believe after youre dead so....this life: no harm, no foul.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

He would, as the knowledge of what lust feels like would be lost.

Unless they at some point knew lust and then someone reached into their brain and removed the knowledge but not the emotion, you cannot "lose" knowledge of emotion.

Then he must've felt the emotion at one point or another.

[Conscentia]

But God does not necessarily feel lust. God would not lose any knowledge by not feeling the emotion.

He would, as the knowledge of what lust feels like would be lost.

Omniscience implies that one does not have to experience everything to know everything. And if the creationists are to be believed, God would know everything about lust having created it.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

He would, as the knowledge of what lust feels like would be lost.

Omniscience implies that one does not have to experience everything to know everything. And if the creationists are to be believed, God would know everything about lust having created it.

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

[Conscentia]

Omniscience implies that one does not have to experience everything to know everything. And if the creationists are to be believed, God would know everything about lust having created it.

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

There you go, now you have an argument that actually makes sense: if God created sin and the capacity for sin then how can he be omni-benevolent?

[Dutch Union of Americana]

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

There you go, now you have an argument that actually makes sense: if God created sin and the capacity for sin then how can he be omni-benevolent?

Ah, whatever. Another problem I have with Christianity and Creationists is this: If god can do anything, why didnt he stop Adam and Eve from eating the Forbidden Fruit? He could've taken steps to prevent it.

[Zottistan]

Omniscience implies that one does not have to experience everything to know everything. And if the creationists are to be believed, God would know everything about lust having created it.

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

How does creating lust take away from benevolence?

If you want to make that argument, use cancer.