[perhaps]

(sorry if someone already posted something like this )

but some evidence to prove that GOD DOES EXIST is that well...this is gonna be hard for me to explain, but i'll do my best

[ok, this is just ONE small argument (i have forgotten the few i was told from a list)]

ok, well, we humans have i guess what you could call some "instinct" when determining if things could be considered right or wrong

one usually feels some guilt when say, i dunno, stealing something from someone, lying to someone, cheating, murdering a person, etc

why do we feel this guilt??? if we believe that humans evolved from apes, then why do we feel guilty about these things? who determined in the beginning what was to be considered 'right' and what was to be considered 'wrong' if there is no God?

we should have free minds and not worry about law and guilt if there was no God that had made these rules up

why is it that today in society, rules that are not to be broken are somewhat (in general) similar to some laws in the bible? how strikingly odd that for example, murder is considered 'bad' in both

we wouldnt have the rules and laws today if God hadnt set out his original law for mankind to follow. the rules that humans would have made if there was no God would probably be different in some way


well, i tried to explain what i wanted to say as best as i could

i hope you could understand what i was trying to get at, whether you believe it or not

[MrCrabby]

if we believe that humans evolved from apes,

Sorry Amanda, the evolutionists are gonna jump on you for this one.
They don't believe that humans evolved from apes, but that humans and apes both evolved from a common predecessor.

[perhaps]

well, the point i was trying to get across anyways was that humans werent created by God (according to non-creationists)

if they believed they evolved from something else, thats fine (if that is what youre saying)

its still the same thing

NOTE: i may use words/phrase that dont EXACTLY fit the meaning i'm trying to get at but i try my best to say what i mean
ex. "I get 'happy' thinking about God." "why are you happy? maybe its only the high that youre feeling and not the true joyfulness"
see, like there i could have used "joyful" or something more suitable, but thats just me...i'm not a thesaurus hehe

but the thesaurus thing didnt have anything to do with what you posted, mark, but i just wanted to make that clear anyways

[Karen M]

Hello Perhaps


>>>(sorry if someone already posted something like this )

but some evidence to prove that GOD DOES EXIST is that well...this is gonna be hard for me to explain, but i'll do my best

[ok, this is just ONE small argument (i have forgotten the few i was told from a list)]

ok, well, we humans have i guess what you could call some "instinct" when determining if things could be considered right or wrong

one usually feels some guilt when say, i dunno, stealing something from someone, lying to someone, cheating, murdering a person, etc

why do we feel this guilt???<<<

Instinct and empathy



>>>if we believe that humans evolved from apes, then why do we feel guilty about these things?<<<

As GF already said, evolution does not say this, but I still get your point.


>>>who determined in the beginning what was to be considered 'right' and what was to be considered 'wrong' if there is no God?<<<

Basically, I believe morality comes from logic, evolutionary instinct, and social contract. I have already explained this on several threads, so if you would like more detail, I can C+P one of my earlier posts for you?

I would also warn you that atheism is not an entire belief system in itself, it can simply be a part of a belief system(for example, asking for a complete list of the "beliefs" of atheism is like asking for a complete list of the "beliefs" of everyone who's favorite color is blue). Therefore, my morality may differ from other secular moralities.

>>>we should have free minds and not worry about law and guilt if there was no God that had made these rules up<<<

Wrong.


>>>why is it that today in society, rules that are not to be broken are somewhat (in general) similar to some laws in the bible? how strikingly odd that for example, murder is considered 'bad' in both<<<

Because these laws are beneficial to a society in general. Its part of social contract theory, which is basically an agreement that says "I won't hurt you or your family if you don't hurt me or my family."


>>>we wouldnt have the rules and laws today if God hadnt set out his original law for mankind to follow. the rules that humans would have made if there was no God would probably be different in some way<<<

The laws you are refurring to, such as "Don't Murder" and "don't steal" do exist today, and I don't believe God exists. Basically, you can not use things that exist today to prove the existance of a God because, under my point of view, they exist today and God doesn't.



>>>well, the point i was trying to get across anyways was that humans werent created by God (according to non-creationists)<<<

Sorry, but I have said this like 50 times now.....: Belief in Evolution does NOT necessitate the lack of belief in a deity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are other religions besides the 3 Jewish-based ones in the world in which Evolution does not contradict their beliefs, and there are is also Theistic Evolution, which are people who believe in one of the three Jewish-based religions AND believe in Evolution(usually they look at Genesis as a large parable and such, but if you want more info on this, I would ask PleasurePain).


Hope that explains my view

Karen

[guitarman]

I think what Amanda is trying to say is this. Men are born with a moral instinct of right and wrong. We inherently hurt when someone get's killed - we just know it's wrong to kill people.

Now, there must be absolutes somewhere. Right? I mean, if there weren't, then you could say, "There are no absolutes." But then you have just contradicted your self because that statement in and of itself is an absolute.

Thus, we simply apply that idea to moral absolutes and get the idea that there must be some moral absolute.

Aaron

[guitarman]

Originally posted by Karen M
Because these laws are beneficial to a society in general. Its part of social contract theory, which is basically an agreement that says "I won't hurt you or your family if you don't hurt me or my family."

Not in our society . Our constitution is based on the Bible. Did ya know that one?


Aaron

[Karen M]

Hello Aaron


>>>I think what Amanda is trying to say is this. Men are born with a moral instinct of right and wrong. We inherently hurt when someone get's killed - we just know it's wrong to kill people.<<<

Yes. But I believe this instinct comes from evolution and upbringing.


>>>Now, there must be absolutes somewhere. Right?<<<

Not necessarily.


>>>I mean, if there weren't, then you could say, "There are no absolutes." But then you have just contradicted your self because that statement in and of itself is an absolute.<<<

I can say that I believe it is most likely there are no moral absolutes


>>>Thus, we simply apply that idea to moral absolutes and get the idea that there must be some moral absolute.<<<

This only works IF there are moral absolutes. I believe people may be able to come up with some universals out of instinct and logic, but not absolutes.



>>>Not in our society . Our constitution is based on the Bible. Did ya know that one?<<<

No, actually it is based on the Enlightenment and Social Contract Theory We were rebelling against the devine ruler theory(the belief that the King was appointed by God). In fact, only 3 of the 10 commandments would actually be constitutional:


1. I Am The Lord Thy God; Thou Shalt have no other gods Before Me. -- First Amendment Violation...ignoring the urge to start a new point on the fact that this seems to imply that there are actually more Gods, but you are simply commanded not to worship them...

2. Don't make false Idols---First Amendment Violation and civil liberties violation

3. Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord, Thy God, In Vain. -- First Amendment Violation

4. Remember The Sabbath Day, to Keep it Holy. -- First Amendment Violation


5. Thou shalt honor thy Father And Thy Mother -- I'm not even sure how this could be passed into law, but any permutation I can concieve would be an infringement of civil liberties.

6. Thou Shalt Not Murder. -- Already law, and this, stealing, and purgery would also apply under Social Contract.

7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. --Already covered by a number of laws concerning divorce, etc., though I don't think the act of adultery, itself, is criminal. Legislating sex partners would fall under a civil liberties violation.

8. Thou Shalt Not Steal. -- Already law.

9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor. -- Already law, in certain forms (slander, libel, purgery, etc.).

10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's House. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. -- I always find it interesting in a dark humor sort of way how "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE"...you know, in there with the house, and the ox, and the rest of the "property".....anyway: Unenforcable, uncontrollable, and violation of civil liberties


You may be thinking of the strict laws in the North that tended to inforce Christian beliefs; those WERE based on Christianity, but for the Constintution, most of it was from the Enlightenment Age.

On the other hand, what really matters right now is where the government is going, not where it came from


Hope this clears that up

Karen

[Chrysostom]

Hello, Karen

>>If the entire city is attacked, that includes the destroying temples doesn't it? Wasn't it normal for Rome to take over cities?<<

Rome already controlled Jerusalem, so it was unlikely for them to attack it. However, they did and, just as Jesus said, they tore down the temple.

i will work on compiling a list and hopefully get back to you by monday (i'm moving to a new dorm room, then driving home, then i have church all sunday!)

>>These people supposivly gave their personal testimonies, which was written in this book. Of course, if you don't want to believe them(which I agree they seem kind of far out ), that is fine. On the other hand, now you know one of the reasons why I don't believe the Bible. <<

Can Feng Shui and Christianity not co-exist?

Have a nice weekend... hope to see you soon!

[Bryan]

Karen, I think that believing that everything happened by chance is much more far out than believing the bible to be true. Especially when you look at the mathematical improbability when this happens.

[Karen M]

Hello again Must and Bryan



>>>Rome already controlled Jerusalem, so it was unlikely for them to attack it. However, they did and, just as Jesus said, they tore down the temple.<<<

According to the Bible, Jesus said that you mean. I think it probably happened in the order of Rome attacked Jerusalem and THEN it got written down later that Jesus must have said that...


>>>Can Feng Shui and Christianity not co-exist?<<<

Sure...why not? I guess I'll have to go find some indian culture testimonies also and then you can co-exist with Shar the Rain God too.


>>>Karen, I think that believing that everything happened by chance is much more far out than believing the bible to be true. Especially when you look at the mathematical improbability when this happens.<<<

Thank you for your opinion I, on the other hand, believe the Bible is extremely unlikely and that it is more likely that we simply do not have enough information to know what happened.


later

Karen


Edit: http://www.irr.org/mit/bom/1830bom-testimonies.html Its not Indian, but I still think these are testimonies of people who's beliefs are contradictory to yours, right? If so, then you can't both be correct.

[MrCrabby]

I think it probably happened in the order of Rome attacked Jerusalem and THEN it got written down later that Jesus must have said that...

I think all the most widely accepted dates given for the writings of the gospels come between A.D. 50-70.

It's highly unlikely that they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem.

[Karen M]

Hello GF

The dates I heard were between 130 and 170, but perhaps those were fairly late interpretations.

You can claim its most likely that they were written before the distruction and I am still going to claim its most likely they were written after the distruction. I think we are going in circles