Is god real?

[Oterro]

Not true! The self-righteous Christians may say that is what the Bible says, but in fact, the Bible does not say all non-Christians go to hell. That myth came about when it was an excuse used by the Spanish Inquisition to justify their torture of people.
In the Bible, Jesus himself says that you can avoid hell by doing good unto others. You don't have to believe in him. Believing in Jesus is a definite way to stay out of hell, but not the only way.

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

He may believe, however, the New testament should be held in higher authority than the old. I'm not sure though, when I was a Christian I thought everyone was going to heaven; then I became a deist.

[Ceannairceach]

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

He may believe, however, the New testament should be held in higher authority than the old. I'm not sure though, when I was a Christian I thought everyone was going to heaven; then I became a deist.

The Buddhist and Hindu beliefs do allow for everyone into heaven, despite religious bonds. So long as you are a generally good person, you get in.

I think Jedi is mixing them and Christianity up...

[Jedi8246]

Not true! The self-righteous Christians may say that is what the Bible says, but in fact, the Bible does not say all non-Christians go to hell. That myth came about when it was an excuse used by the Spanish Inquisition to justify their torture of people.
In the Bible, Jesus himself says that you can avoid hell by doing good unto others. You don't have to believe in him. Believing in Jesus is a definite way to stay out of hell, but not the only way.

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

The 1st commandment states that you shall have no other gods before me. However that leads to a grievous error in judgement. It does not say those who don't believe in God will go to hell. Most people break the commandment about Sunday being the Sabbath and no work. Does that mean we shall go to hell? No. The New Testament helps to override this a little bit. Note I am not saying that we should ignore the 10 commandments because of the New Testament, but it alleviates it. The Old Testament is filled with many requirements God expected from the Jews. The New Testament shows how love is more important than faith. There are even verses in the Old Testament that back this up, though they are often ignored. The Bible tells us to treat others with love.
Heaven can come from being a good person who loves thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus is the Judge of Heaven not the gatekeeper. He judges us all on an individual basis. If he finds that you were a good person, he can give you a chance to accept him as your savior and you can enter heaven.
The only ones who go to hell are the ones who accept the gospel as the truth but choose to ignore it and be bad.

[Farnhamia]

Commandment one, to my knowledge, states that you must have no god before... Well, God. Therefore, every single non-Christian is breaking the first and, arguably, most important rule of Christianity. Atheists as well. Agnostics might have a shot, if God isn't pissy at the moment. Unlikely, but a shot.

The 1st commandment states that you shall have no other gods before me. However that leads to a grievous error in judgement. It does not say those who don't believe in God will go to hell. Most people break the commandment about Sunday being the Sabbath and no work. Does that mean we shall go to hell? No. The New Testament helps to override this a little bit. Note I am not saying that we should ignore the 10 commandments because of the New Testament, but it alleviates it. The Old Testament is filled with many requirements God expected from the Jews. The New Testament shows how love is more important than faith. There are even verses in the Old Testament that back this up, though they are often ignored. The Bible tells us to treat others with love.
Heaven can come from being a good person who loves thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus is the Judge of Heaven not the gatekeeper. He judges us all on an individual basis. If he finds that you were a good person, he can give you a chance to accept him as your savior and you can enter heaven.
The only ones who go to hell are the ones who accept the gospel as the truth but choose to ignore it and be bad.

Saint John the Evangelist called and refers you to Chapter 14, Verse 6 of his Gospel.

[Jedi8246]

The 1st commandment states that you shall have no other gods before me. However that leads to a grievous error in judgement. It does not say those who don't believe in God will go to hell. Most people break the commandment about Sunday being the Sabbath and no work. Does that mean we shall go to hell? No. The New Testament helps to override this a little bit. Note I am not saying that we should ignore the 10 commandments because of the New Testament, but it alleviates it. The Old Testament is filled with many requirements God expected from the Jews. The New Testament shows how love is more important than faith. There are even verses in the Old Testament that back this up, though they are often ignored. The Bible tells us to treat others with love.
Heaven can come from being a good person who loves thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus is the Judge of Heaven not the gatekeeper. He judges us all on an individual basis. If he finds that you were a good person, he can give you a chance to accept him as your savior and you can enter heaven.
The only ones who go to hell are the ones who accept the gospel as the truth but choose to ignore it and be bad.

Saint John the Evangelist called and refers you to Chapter 14, Verse 6 of his Gospel.

You just proved me right. Jesus says that you come to heaven only through me. Jesus gets to choose who gets into heaven. Not other humans.

[Jedi8246]

He may believe, however, the New testament should be held in higher authority than the old. I'm not sure though, when I was a Christian I thought everyone was going to heaven; then I became a deist.

The Buddhist and Hindu beliefs do allow for everyone into heaven, despite religious bonds. So long as you are a generally good person, you get in.

I think Jedi is mixing them and Christianity up...

I am not. Christianity says the same thing. As I said, it is a common misbelieve that came about during the Inquisition.

[Farnhamia]

Saint John the Evangelist called and refers you to Chapter 14, Verse 6 of his Gospel.

You just proved me right. Jesus says that you come to heaven only through me. Jesus gets to choose who gets into heaven. Not other humans.

Well, you said he wasn't the gatekeeper. "Only through me" sounds pretty gatekeeperish. But then, I think your basic assumption on the subject of God and Jesus is wrong, so, you know ...

[Jedi8246]

You just proved me right. Jesus says that you come to heaven only through me. Jesus gets to choose who gets into heaven. Not other humans.

Well, you said he wasn't the gatekeeper. "Only through me" sounds pretty gatekeeperish. But then, I think your basic assumption on the subject of God and Jesus is wrong, so, you know ...

Now you are being silly. Trying to tell a Christian that my assumption of God and Jesus is wrong.First off it is not my assumption.
What I am saying is backed up by Bible verses. You believe the common myth given birth by the Spanish Inquisition. Please do your homework before trying to tell me I'm wrong. Jesus decides who gets into heaven, not other humans. He is the Judge of the open gates. Not the opener and closer of said gates.

[Farnhamia]

Well, you said he wasn't the gatekeeper. "Only through me" sounds pretty gatekeeperish. But then, I think your basic assumption on the subject of God and Jesus is wrong, so, you know ...

Now you are being silly. Trying to tell a Christian that my assumption of God and Jesus is wrong.First off it is not my assumption.
What I am saying is backed up by Bible verses. You believe the common myth given birth by the Spanish Inquisition. Please do your homework before trying to tell me I'm wrong. Jesus decides who gets into heaven, not other humans. He is the Judge of the open gates. Not the opener and closer of said gates.

You misunderstand me. By "your basic assumption," I mean the assumption there actually is a God and that Jesus is his Son. What the Son's function may be in the air-castle built on that assumption is really of little interest to me.

[Jedi8246]

Now you are being silly. Trying to tell a Christian that my assumption of God and Jesus is wrong.First off it is not my assumption.
What I am saying is backed up by Bible verses. You believe the common myth given birth by the Spanish Inquisition. Please do your homework before trying to tell me I'm wrong. Jesus decides who gets into heaven, not other humans. He is the Judge of the open gates. Not the opener and closer of said gates.

You misunderstand me. By "your basic assumption," I mean the assumption there actually is a God and that Jesus is his Son. What the Son's function may be in the air-castle built on that assumption is really of little interest to me.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. But once again, nothing in the Bible says anything about an air-castle. Heaven is not a place here or in the physical.
That is you filling things in with your modern perceptions.

[Coccygia]

You misunderstand me. By "your basic assumption," I mean the assumption there actually is a God and that Jesus is his Son. What the Son's function may be in the air-castle built on that assumption is really of little interest to me.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. But once again, nothing in the Bible says anything about an air-castle. Heaven is not a place here or in the physical.
That is you filling things in with your modern perceptions.

"Air-castle" or, as I think Farnhamia meant, "a castle in the air" is a metaphor, signifying something illusory built on nothing substantial, Jedi, not anything from the Bible or not from the Bible. That's you filling things in with your perceptions, I think.

[Jedi8246]

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. But once again, nothing in the Bible says anything about an air-castle. Heaven is not a place here or in the physical.
That is you filling things in with your modern perceptions.

"Air-castle" or, as I think Farnhamia meant, "a castle in the air" is a metaphor, signifying something illusory built on nothing substantial, Jedi, not anything from the Bible or not from the Bible. That's you filling things in with your perceptions, I think.

Their is plenty to suggest that the universe was created by design and not by randomness. So substantial, I think so.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Their is plenty to suggest that the universe was created by design and not by randomness. So substantial, I think so.

There's no actual science pointing to anything but natural formation. All discoveries to date point to a universe that came about with no design

[Farnhamia]

"Air-castle" or, as I think Farnhamia meant, "a castle in the air" is a metaphor, signifying something illusory built on nothing substantial, Jedi, not anything from the Bible or not from the Bible. That's you filling things in with your perceptions, I think.

Their is plenty to suggest that the universe was created by design and not by randomness. So substantial, I think so.

That is what I meant, and no, sorry, there is no evidence of design.

[Coccygia]

"Air-castle" or, as I think Farnhamia meant, "a castle in the air" is a metaphor, signifying something illusory built on nothing substantial, Jedi, not anything from the Bible or not from the Bible. That's you filling things in with your perceptions, I think.

Their is plenty to suggest that the universe was created by design and not by randomness. So substantial, I think so.

I repeat, it was a metaphor, not an argument or proposition. I was defining the term. Farnhamia, I think, was referring to religious doctrines about Jesus as the Son of God.

[Unhealthy2]

However, not everyone believes that. Hence, it is NOT AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!

So something is only true if everyone accepts it?

[Unhealthy2]

I disagree. I do not accept absolute truths. I am, however, of the belief that most of the things that can be questioned are so incredibly, unimaginably unlikely that they have no part in my life. I do not believe that 2+2 must necessarily equal 4. It is, however, idiotic in the most extreme way possible to think that it doesn't.

The idea that there is no truth is logically self-refuting.

The idea that 2 + 2 can equal something other than 4 is also nonsensical, as 2 + 2 is DEFINED to be 4. It can't be not 4 without redefining the "+" operator.

Also, since "likelihood" rests on the assumptions of mathematics, it is inherently nonsensical to ask "What is the likelihood that 2 + 2 isn't 4?" The whole concept of probability rests on the consistency of the basic mathematics of the real numbers. If 2 + 2 didn't equal 4, then probability theory wouldn't work to begin with. Hence, you can't talk about likelihood without inherently accepting arithmetic.

[Unhealthy2]

Now you are just struggling to make any point whatsoever.

God is WELL within the room of reasonable doubt. Sure, solipsism is absurd, but doubting god is well within reason.

[Ceannairceach]

However, not everyone believes that. Hence, it is NOT AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!

So something is only true if everyone accepts it?

No, but it is only an absolute truth if everyone accepts it.

[Unhealthy2]

There is no way to not believe in absolute truth.

There are quite a few ways.

They involve self-refuting mental gymnastics, though.

[Unhealthy2]

No, but it is only an absolute truth if everyone accepts it.

Nonsense. Reality doesn't conform to our consensus. The fact that there exist uncountable spaces of Lebesgue measure zero is completely true whether one accepts it or not.

[Ceannairceach]

No, but it is only an absolute truth if everyone accepts it.

Nonsense. Reality doesn't conform to our consensus. The fact that there exist uncountable spaces of Lebesgue measure zero is completely true whether one accepts it or not.

What I was arguing against in the case of absolute truth was in terms of "absolute moral laws", which the website Jedi posted said they existed. I said that they didn't. I can agree that most things, accepted or not, are true based on fact and not consensus.

And yet somehow, absolute truth leads to god...

[Unhealthy2]

What I was arguing against in the case of absolute truth was in terms of "absolute moral laws", which the website Jedi posted said they existed. I said that they didn't. I can agree that most things, accepted or not, are true based on fact and not consensus.

And yet somehow, absolute truth leads to god...

I hate that people always seem to think that "absolute truth" is a synonym for "absolute morality."

[Ceannairceach]

What I was arguing against in the case of absolute truth was in terms of "absolute moral laws", which the website Jedi posted said they existed. I said that they didn't. I can agree that most things, accepted or not, are true based on fact and not consensus.

And yet somehow, absolute truth leads to god...

I hate that people always seem to think that "absolute truth" is a synonym for "absolute morality."

Mhmm.

Let me see if I can find the link for you... The morality part is horrible. It basically calls you a rapist supporter if you don't agree that absolute moral laws are real.

FOUND IT!

[Unhealthy2]

Mhmm.

Let me see if I can find the link for you... The morality part is horrible. It basically calls you a rapist supporter if you don't agree that absolute moral laws are real.

FOUND IT!

Apparently you either believe in absolute moral laws or you're fine with constant rape. This ignores several alternatives:

1) You believe in an objective morality that isn't based on rules but on a guiding principle, like utilitarianism, or deontological views.

2) You think that rules are useful for societal flourishing but that ultimately rules aren't some fundamental part of the universe. Thus, it's not inconsistent for you to be against rape, because you simply think that, while rape is not ultimately wrong all the way down to the level of particle physics, it's still not productive in creating a beneficial society. This is like how we all use Newtonian mechanical assumptions 24/7 even though we know they aren't right. Deriving the exactly correct solutions commensurate with quantum field theory embedded in curved space-time is unnecessary for things like throwing a baseball.

There may be other possibilities as well, but this is enough to show what a false dichotomy that argument was.

Also, even if you do believe in absolute morality, how does that prove that god exists? Why would absolute morality require the existence of god?