Why do you believe that there is a god?

[questlife]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by QuestLife

Originally Posted by sillyputty


OK Smart guy, why do you believe there is a god and why must you acknowledge it? 

i dont think anyone is arguing that you MUST believe in a God.

Answer the question.
Why do you believe in a god?

That is the topic of the whole thread. 

hmm...well thats a pretty complex question. im not really sure if i belive in 'God'. i feel that energy comes from somewhere, even if its a series of chemical reactions that create, lets say our solar system, some form of energy sparked that to happen. Not saying that it was by all design, but i do feel like there is a source of energy from which all living things have come. My concept of a higher being is still being shaped by things that i learn and experiences that i have. honestly, in the vasteness of the universe, not sure if its in our capacity as human beings to even comprehend things of that nature.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by QuestLife



i dont think anyone is arguing that you MUST believe in a God.

Answer the question.
Why do you believe in a god?

That is the topic of the whole thread. 

at "Answer the question."

Who said I believe in a higher being and who said I (or anyone else for that matter) must acknowledge this entity if I did believe it exists?

The purpose of my post was to point out that you all are rejecting the idea of a higher being within a framework with which you do not agree and apparently despise.  However, don't act like there are no other possible understandings of a potential higher being that exist outside that framework...

There aren't though.
I'm simply saying, if you believe in a god, say or show why you believe in it. If you can't support that notion then you have no reason to believe it. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Yo shut the $!$% up...you've literally said the same thing like 1,000 times in this post

 


are you that dedicated to nothing?

 

[questlife]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Answer the question.
Why do you believe in a god?

That is the topic of the whole thread. 

at "Answer the question."

Who said I believe in a higher being and who said I (or anyone else for that matter) must acknowledge this entity if I did believe it exists?

The purpose of my post was to point out that you all are rejecting the idea of a higher being within a framework with which you do not agree and apparently despise.  However, don't act like there are no other possible understandings of a potential higher being that exist outside that framework...

There aren't though.
I'm simply saying, if you believe in a god, say or show why you believe in it. If you can't support that notion then you have no reason to believe it. 

 
  but your idea of support is confined by what YOU consider to be plausible.

.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by QuestLife

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by red mpls

at "Answer the question."

Who said I believe in a higher being and who said I (or anyone else for that matter) must acknowledge this entity if I did believe it exists?

The purpose of my post was to point out that you all are rejecting the idea of a higher being within a framework with which you do not agree and apparently despise.  However, don't act like there are no other possible understandings of a potential higher being that exist outside that framework...

There aren't though.
I'm simply saying, if you believe in a god, say or show why you believe in it. If you can't support that notion then you have no reason to believe it. 

 
  but your idea of support is confined by what YOU consider to be plausible.

.

...more epistemology....you're trying to bring philosophy into this again. Its simple. If you assert something, back it up. 
*sigh*

Look man. You just want to be free to assert ANY AND EVERYTHING with no evidence and NEVER be wrong. Thats the problem.

If you can't support an argument with even plausible, not even factual, but plausible statements, then WHY should I or anyone else believe you or adopt what you are saying? 

What is stopping me from saying that I believe humans lived with dinosaurs? We all know its not true yet since I dont have to support that argument then I can't be wrong. Thats the problem. 

 

[wisepharoah]

If you havent experienced the things I mentioned that can be induced regularly but DMT, Ayuhausca etc enhance then I would't expect you to understand. Anton there is a vast difference between being mentally disabled and take psyches. HAHAHAH the fact you compared the two is pretty funny. Cocaine and weed are not psychedelics and before spouting ignorant "know it all" theories you should research studies into such things and not from one source.The scientific community doesn't agree on all things and is subject to human bias...... kind of like this discussion.

 

[iamsaikotic]

This is thread is still alive?

This sillyputty character really has a lot of time on his/her hands.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Yo shut the $!$% up...you've literally said the same thing like 1,000 times in this post

 


are you that dedicated to nothing?

This is why no one takes you seriously.
I'm not "dedicated" to nothing. 

I'm dedicated to supporting things that have consistent reasoning behind them. 

If you assert something, back it up...or at least SEEK the evidence. 

Otherwise, don't assert it. 

 

[smoke ya later]

what if you were born in some remote place and didn't know about "GOD" or "SIN" would this person still go to hell?

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Answer the question.
Why do you believe in a god?

That is the topic of the whole thread. 

at "Answer the question."

Who said I believe in a higher being and who said I (or anyone else for that matter) must acknowledge this entity if I did believe it exists?

The purpose of my post was to point out that you all are rejecting the idea of a higher being within a framework with which you do not agree and apparently despise.  However, don't act like there are no other possible understandings of a potential higher being that exist outside that framework...

There aren't though.
I'm simply saying, if you believe in a god, say or show why you believe in it. If you can't support that notion then you have no reason to believe it. 

Yes, there are though.  This is where your dogmatic ideological framework clouds your ability to think critically.  The irony.

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Yo shut the $!$% up...you've literally said the same thing like 1,000 times in this post

 


are you that dedicated to nothing?

This is why no one takes you seriously.
I'm not "dedicated" to nothing. 

I'm dedicated to supporting things that have consistent reasoning behind them. 

If you assert something, back it up...or at least SEEK the evidence. 

Otherwise, don't assert it. 

No one takes me seriously? ok..thats fine

 
@#@! outta here bruh...this is just annoying now..there is no debate here because its just a big circle with you saying the same thing in every post.

What is your agenda? To repeat your request for evidence at every chance? 

Obviously your seeking some evidence...do your atheist soul searching on your own terms...don't litter NT with your grey !+* 'rationale'..I've never seen somebody defend atheism like you.

 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by WISEPHAROAH

If you havent experienced the things I mentioned that can be induced regularly but DMT, Ayuhausca etc enhance then I would't expect you to understand. Anton there is a vast difference between being mentally disabled and take psyches. HAHAHAH the fact you compared the two is pretty funny. Cocaine and weed are not psychedelics and before spouting ignorant "know it all" theories you should research studies into such things and not from one source.The scientific community doesn't agree on all things and is subject to human bias...... kind of like this discussion.

The point is...you're asserting that since you have to use these drugs to have these experiences then I won't know what a god is.
Thats the problem. You using drugs to change your MENTAL state might give you new experiences but none of that substantiates the existence of a god beyond what your perception is. 

The argument falls apart when you assert that since I haven't done or used these drugs that i'm incapable of understanding a god. What about the overwhelming majority of people who don't subscribe to your drug usage? Are they incapable of your god too? That is ridiculous. It existing in your MIND doesn't make it a more real entity in mentality or physical manifestation. 

I simply also compared coke and weed to just say that if I can get feelings from those drugs then why can't I say that is a god experience? You can't just say the experiences from other drugs are more valid than the other when they obviously illicit changes in mental state, but to different degrees. 

I know the scientific community doesn't agree on all things. Its not religion. It actually tries to figure out who is more right than the other person. That actually supports me than it does you. 

 

[james earl zones]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that after subscribing to disbelief in God and gods a while back, DMT and 4AcO-DMT almost changed my mind. I still do not believe but the things I saw, felt, and experienced after dosing were wild. The pineal gland is an amazing organ.

okay I'm done.
 

 

[questlife]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by QuestLife

Originally Posted by sillyputty

There aren't though.
I'm simply saying, if you believe in a god, say or show why you believe in it. If you can't support that notion then you have no reason to believe it. 

 
  but your idea of support is confined by what YOU consider to be plausible.

.

...more epistemology....you're trying to bring philosophy into this again. Its simple. If you assert something, back it up. 
*sigh*

Look man. You just want to be free to assert ANY AND EVERYTHING with no evidence and NEVER be wrong. Thats the problem.

If you can't support an argument with even plausible, not even factual, but plausible statements, then WHY should I or anyone else believe you or adopt what you are saying? 



What is stopping me from saying that I believe humans lived with dinosaurs? We all know its not true yet since I dont have to support that argument then I can't be wrong. Thats the problem. 

first off, dont assume that i am coming in here spouting off rhetoric and telling people they need to adopt my ideas. i will be the first person to tell you i dont have ANY of the answers. However, i still leave my mind open to the possibility of something bigger than myself.

secondly, i dont care if you adopt what im saying or follow my beliefs. acutally, no one should just take what im am saying and believe it, and i never said that anyone should. 

as others have stated, you seem like you have your mind made up about how you see the world and universe. why bother asking people why they believe in god , when to you, the very concept of god doesnt even make sense?



  

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by red mpls

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by red mpls

at "Answer the question."

Who said I believe in a higher being and who said I (or anyone else for that matter) must acknowledge this entity if I did believe it exists?

The purpose of my post was to point out that you all are rejecting the idea of a higher being within a framework with which you do not agree and apparently despise.  However, don't act like there are no other possible understandings of a potential higher being that exist outside that framework...

There aren't though.
I'm simply saying, if you believe in a god, say or show why you believe in it. If you can't support that notion then you have no reason to believe it. 

Yes, there are though.  This is where your dogmatic ideological framework clouds your ability to think critically.  The irony.

You're not challenging what I've said.
If I say that I can fly, should I not provide evidence of it? Am I just free to say anything without any proof behind it? 

If you say god is a tree or the wind or the fact you're alive...or whatever you choose to expand or contract that argument to then you have to back it up. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by QuestLife

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by QuestLife


 
  but your idea of support is confined by what YOU consider to be plausible.

.

...more epistemology....you're trying to bring philosophy into this again. Its simple. If you assert something, back it up. 
*sigh*

Look man. You just want to be free to assert ANY AND EVERYTHING with no evidence and NEVER be wrong. Thats the problem.

If you can't support an argument with even plausible, not even factual, but plausible statements, then WHY should I or anyone else believe you or adopt what you are saying? 



What is stopping me from saying that I believe humans lived with dinosaurs? We all know its not true yet since I dont have to support that argument then I can't be wrong. Thats the problem. 

first off, dont assume that i am coming in here spouting off rhetoric and telling people they need to adopt my ideas. i will be the first person to tell you i dont have ANY of the answers. However, i still leave my mind open to the possibility of something bigger than myself.

secondly, i dont care if you adopt what im saying or follow my beliefs. acutally, no one should just take what im am saying and believe it, and i never said that anyone should. 

as others have stated, you seem like you have your mind made up about how you see the world and universe. why bother asking people why they believe in god , when to you, the very concept of god doesnt even make sense?

  

I have already said...there could be a god...or there could not be a god...there could be a purple dinosaur in the himalayans, or there could not be. I DO NOT KNOW...
Yet if you ASSERT something then you must back it up. 

End of story. 

I'm open to ANY possibility, but as of yet, none of the evidence brought forth to support the claim that a god exists does not support that claim, thus I do not subscribe to the notion that there is a god, as described. 

 

[b smooth 202]

You had better continue to wear Atheism as a badge like you have in this thread...pathetic 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

I'm gonna go ahead and say that after subscribing to disbelief in God and gods a while back, DMT and 4AcO-DMT almost changed my mind. I still do not believe but the things I saw, felt, and experienced after dosing were wild. The pineal gland is an amazing organ.

okay I'm done.
 

This is my point though...i've been drunk and high before... but none of that means there was a god to experience. 
If its all in your mind you have to just be honest with yourself and realize that your brain chemistrys reaction to those drugs caused that experience, not some supernatural existence. 

Its like how different drugs affect different species to a various range of results. You can't assert that ONLY humans are capable of experiencing a certain feeling when other animals may report things to a more or less extent. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

You had better continue to wear Atheism as a badge like you have in this thread...pathetic 

I believe that ice cream created us.
I don't have to show you why I believe that because I just feel it in my heart. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

You had better continue to wear Atheism as a badge like you have in this thread...pathetic 

I believe that ice cream created us.
I don't have to show you why I believe that because I just feel it in my heart. 

 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Yo shut the $!$% up...you've literally said the same thing like 1,000 times in this post

 


are you that dedicated to nothing?

This is why no one takes you seriously.
I'm not "dedicated" to nothing. 

I'm dedicated to supporting things that have consistent reasoning behind them. 

If you assert something, back it up...or at least SEEK the evidence. 

Otherwise, don't assert it. 

No one takes me seriously? ok..thats fine

 
@#@! outta here bruh...this is just annoying now..there is no debate here because its just a big circle with you saying the same thing in every post.

What is your agenda? To repeat your request for evidence at every chance? 

Obviously your seeking some evidence...do your atheist soul searching on your own terms...don't litter NT with your grey !+* 'rationale'..I've never seen somebody defend atheism like you.

 

As i'm replying to this, you have NOT ONCE posted what you believe and why you believe it, yet you come in here and troll around and dodge questions like no other. 

 

[wisepharoah]

here you go Anton I'm sure this guy knows a bit more about "science" then anyone in here and he is a "scientist". I can literally give you thousands of books and information about a true spiritual experience. Just because you have'nt experienced something and you don't believe it doesn't make it anymore unreal. Its extremely arrogant to think any of us have even a fractal of the answers, like I stated we are mere babies and the tone of this conversation and mud slinging in this thread confirms that.

 

[questlife]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by QuestLife

Originally Posted by sillyputty

...more epistemology....you're trying to bring philosophy into this again. Its simple. If you assert something, back it up. 
*sigh*

Look man. You just want to be free to assert ANY AND EVERYTHING with no evidence and NEVER be wrong. Thats the problem.

If you can't support an argument with even plausible, not even factual, but plausible statements, then WHY should I or anyone else believe you or adopt what you are saying? 



What is stopping me from saying that I believe humans lived with dinosaurs? We all know its not true yet since I dont have to support that argument then I can't be wrong. Thats the problem. 

first off, dont assume that i am coming in here spouting off rhetoric and telling people they need to adopt my ideas. i will be the first person to tell you i dont have ANY of the answers. However, i still leave my mind open to the possibility of something bigger than myself.

secondly, i dont care if you adopt what im saying or follow my beliefs. acutally, no one should just take what im am saying and believe it, and i never said that anyone should. 

as others have stated, you seem like you have your mind made up about how you see the world and universe. why bother asking people why they believe in god , when to you, the very concept of god doesnt even make sense?

  

I have already said...there could be a god...or there could not be a god...there could be a purple dinosaur in the himalayans, or there could not be. I DO NOT KNOW...
Yet if you ASSERT something then you must back it up. 

End of story. 

I'm open to ANY possibility, but as of yet, none of the evidence brought forth to support the claim that a god exists does not support that claim, thus I do not subscribe to the notion that there is a god, as described. 

and we understand that, you have stated it many times. you need proof of 'god' to believe in 'god'. we get it. however, there are some people who don't need that emperical proof. you just have to accept that at this point.

The universe is insanely vast and most earthy concepts of how it came into existance are very limited in scope. but i personally feel that the energy that exists in the universe, came from somewhere. i dont have proof of that, so go ahead and bash it lol but thats just how i feel , at this point.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Kramer

2 things: pleasurePhD how do we know you actually have a phd? And 2nd can we just all agree that no one is going to be convinced of anything and lock this up

1. You actually don't know, but you could ask.

2. I kind of agree, yet I still have so many unanswered questions. I would especially like to hear from JaysRcrak, and his opinion on my last post. Seeing how I apologized to him and admitted fault can he get over it and  finally actually answer my real questions and comments.

In regards to your last post concerning our debate:

1. That was my original point to begin with. Our technology is limited. So scientists can't prove, once and for all, how we got here. Just as no one can prove once and for all that God exists. What will you say, when we have the technology, but it finds evidence that God actually does exist? It works both ways. I don't challenge the entire field of science. Only the unprovable theories like the ylem of the BBT. It is impossible test to anything at that density,(the entire universe contained in something several billion times smaller than a proton)
but yet that did not stop them from forming a theory around it. They say the universe contracted to the density of the ylem causing the "Big Bang" that caused our universe to start expanding. (Not to mention the fact that somewhere in between it had to slow down to allow for the "clumping" of elements that created the stars, plantes,etc, and then resumed expansion) None of these ideas have been tested. Thats why the BBT is as equally perposterous as saying God created it all. Which again was my original point.

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak


The scientific explanation of creation has as many holes in it as the religious explanation.

2. I do not discredit the use of IgG subclass assays all together. Only as a method to predict a person's food allergies. I only posted the links to show that there are several reputable sources that agree with my point of view. However, after consulting with someone with actual expertise in the subject (my girlfriend- PhD in Biomedical Sciences at Johns Hopkins University), yes, my girlfriend is a scientist, my description of why IgG subclass assays arent ideal for those kind of test was not 100% accurate. I will admit that to you. While she agrees with me, she says it is not as cut and dry as saying "they are an unproven method for diagnosing food allergies," because there are other factors involved.

But my main point for even bring up the assays was as a rebuttal to sillyputty saying everything has to be proven, when that is obviously incorrect.

3. I have already addressed your questions on God. At this time it is unknowable, therefore impossible, to prove the existence of God.


But question the OP asked is why do you believe in God? And people gave their answer. Which is what gave spark to the whole "prove it" debate in the first place.

1. Yes, I understand that. And, I still disagree because it's not the same. Yes, both groups don't have full empirical evidence, but the BBT has much more backing it up than the existence of God. That was my point. Our hypothesis of the BBT is warranted by the fact our theoretical models, mathematics, and quantum mechanics supports it.  When we do have that tech and we come to find that God exists, then I will be happy that we finally know the truth. Please read my response to WISEPHARAOH of why. So it doesn't really go the both ways because if God is proven not to exist then theists would not be happy, I again would be just as happy to just know the truth.

We just have to agree to disagree on that and end the topic.

2. Yes, I understand that too and again I was wrong to dance around that point. I am glad you asked her and actually NEITHER of us was really wrong. I can admit we were both commenting on different aspects of one assay. Very cool too. I know a few individuals that go to John Hopkins.

Sillyputty was saying nothing is just thrown out there and accepted as fact in the science field. Those assays are not always commonly used and obviously not widely accepted or they wouldn't be controversial. Your posts confirm that. Scientists and doctors are still trying to prove that they work. If for example there was no websites that stated they were controversial and all scientist and doctors used and accepted them, and then you had proof of their unreliability, then I could agree with you. But, this is not the case and I feel like those examples only strengthens the scientists argument. But, that's just me. Some science in the medical field that is "unproven"is still practiced due to the fact that 1. they don't harm anyone and 2. theoretically they might work. But, how would we know unless they were tested upon. That's why they have clinical trials.

3. There were other comments and questions, but I don't really care. I feel like we have come to an understanding, which is good.

 

[wisepharoah]

At the end of the day LIFE is a theory. Now I'll go out and enjoy my beautiful day in my psychotic reality where I'm more than just bones wrapped up in a complex meat package developed by millions of years of "evolution" from single celled organisms to fish on to apes to this self conscious observant human man with feelings,hopes,dreams, love and a belief that there is more than what meets the eye. I'm extremely looney in my little world.

GOD BLESS niketalk!