- NEW!
by DiSTurBiA on January 18th, 2008
I like my free will lol. My free will did turn me away from god, seeing as I have no proof that he exists
Is there a study guide along with"Know the Bible in 30 Days"?
by Answerbag Staff on July 11th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What year did ronald knox publish the new testament?
by Answerbag Staff on July 6th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who publishes the new King James Bible?
by Answerbag Staff on June 14th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Christians, does the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) still apply and still matter today? This is a follow up of my first question.
by Parepidemos on January 14th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Is there anywhere I can get audio of the King James Bible with an Australian narrator?
by AussieMe on January 12th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading The Bible teaches that God is good by nature, but all humans have the free will to turn away from Him and be sinful. By this logic, wouldn't sin be impossible if humans didn't have free will, therefor making human free will the root of all evil?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
me 2...no proof watsoever...guess he should have thot twice
by PixieDust_and_DemonHorns on July 20th, 2008
No proof? You wouldn't accept proof if you saw it.
by LarryH54 on August 21st, 2008
Show me
by PixieDust_and_DemonHorns on August 22nd, 2008
Im waiting for this "proof"
by DiSTurBiA on August 22nd, 2008
Proof from scripture... oh, wait, you won't accept that, it's been 'corrupted'.
Proof from such things as beauty in the world, the way the laws of the universe work together... oh, wait. that's just opinion and 'chance'.
Nevertheless, for centuries, brilliant people HAVE accepted such as proof. Too bad that's not good enough for you.
by LarryH54 on August 22nd, 2008
um no, speculation isnt fact, nor truth. Brillient people have been brainwashed into thinking it is truth
by DiSTurBiA on August 22nd, 2008
Larry: Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
The explanation involving the least assumptions is usually the correct one.
And God, at least the sort of God laid out in religious scriptures, certainly involves more assumptions that virtually all of the alternatives.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 22nd, 2008
Of course, Occam's razor also prohibits chance from being the prime mover of the universe. The odds of all the laws and constants of the universe synergetically coming together to allow life to form are ridiculously long. Nevertheless, your faith in it remains quite unshakable.
by LarryH54 on August 22nd, 2008
I disagree.
Presuming the universe to be random involves much, much less in the way of assumptions than presuming it to be governed by a higher-power.
Notice, we can observe chance, and we can observe that the laws of the universe come together. We cannot observe that they are governed by a God.
In other words, just because there is some degree of illogical and unknown involved in a Godless universe, that doesn't make God, with all the specifics and quirks and anthropomorphism given "Him" by religion, a more logical option.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 22nd, 2008
well said Roland, finally someone thinking with at least a modicum of intelligence, and logic
by DiSTurBiA on August 22nd, 2008
Thanks, nvg70.
-
Oh, and also, I thought of another big hole in your argument regarding assumptions about a random universe: If the universe has been going on infinitely, which speaking as one Agostic, I assume it has in some form or another, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe that those random processes would eventually fall into some sort of order, because over the full course of a random and infinite universe, every concievable outcome not only could, but in theory almost certainly *Will* happen.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 22nd, 2008
In a finite and random universe, the chances of order coming together would me small.
But in an infinite and random universe, the chances of that, or any given thing, happening at some point in space-time, are %100.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 22nd, 2008
Yes, unfortunately, science is ill suited for detecting non repeatable phenomena and personalities. And God is far more than a phenomena. Science is a powerful tool. But it cannot answer every question in the human heart.
by LarryH54 on August 22nd, 2008
If you want to talk about faith, or "Questions in the Human Heart", go somewhere else.
I do believe that God has a relative, subjective form of existence. That God exists for believers, because people control their reality through their perceptions.
But objectively and scientificially, which are the terms we're on here, no dice.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 22nd, 2008
Go somewhere else??? Maybe you should re-read the original question. If anyone is off topic here, it's you.
by LarryH54 on August 22nd, 2008
The original comment and answer here were regarding "Proof", "Proof" is a concept within the realm of objectivity and science, not faith or philosophy.
And we're not commenting on the question, we're commenting on the answer.
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 22nd, 2008
right again Roland
by DiSTurBiA on August 22nd, 2008
why is it i say i dont beleieve in god then i giant debate starts and i'm called unintelligent? and yes everyone got way off subject here at the end
by PixieDust_and_DemonHorns on August 23rd, 2008
some on here think it's their life mission to try to convert people into their fantasies
by DiSTurBiA on August 23rd, 2008
"Nevertheless, it does move." --Galileo
Now who is acting the bishop? And congratulating themselves for it?
by LarryH54 on August 23rd, 2008
um thats you dude
by DiSTurBiA on August 23rd, 2008
Y'know, people... we *Are* pretty pointless here.
Perhaps we could get back to main debate subject?
by Mr. Meaulnes on August 23rd, 2008
please
by PixieDust_and_DemonHorns on August 23rd, 2008