- NEW!
by Anonymous on April 26th, 2008
by .DanielleFLOURINE on April 26th, 2008
by Dmitri on April 26th, 2008
by Anonymous on April 26th, 2008
by DudeLer on April 26th, 2008
by Occams Electric Razor on April 27th, 2008
by philosopher-saint on April 27th, 2008
by vasti on April 27th, 2008
by jaek on April 27th, 2008
by Friartuck on April 27th, 2008
by CaptainHarley adores his life penguin on April 27th, 2008
by American idle on April 27th, 2008
by j ninja... on April 27th, 2008
by DudeLer on April 27th, 2008
by Kizz miazz on August 9th, 2009
by RubixQ on August 9th, 2009
by Takei-Shihan on August 9th, 2009
HAVE YOU GOT AN OPINION
by hong kong phooey on May 30th, 2011
| 5 people like this
Does believing in god to accept failures dim the light we dawn upon our relationships with humanity?
by pearloaf is not yelling and dreams of bal on March 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
God needs blood to fix the world, but only his own has the magical power to do it. So did he give himself a body and then killed it? WTF?
by buttman on February 12th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Do people choose their sins and indiscretions or did they inherit them from their ancestors?
by Anonymous on February 13th, 2011
| 5 people like this
Name some things that both religious and non-religious people agree on.
by Mountaineer on November 2nd, 2011
| 12 people like this
You're reading Does man find God or does God find man?
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
...and then other men "find" the invented god, but claim the invented god "found" them in a dream, or a cave, or a temple
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 26th, 2008
This is true. Classic "sheeple" response...
by Anonymous on April 26th, 2008
I would agree with that concept.
by DudeLer on April 26th, 2008
Wow, that is really not true.
Not even the most audacious Atheists, Darwinists, & Secularists will give NO probability of G-d.
Take a critical thinking class to understand the relevance of qualifiers for a theory. You have absolutely no proof that he is not the Great Architect.
Have you ever taken a Physics, Anatomy, Nutrition, Organic Chemistry class? Where do you think all this perfect information comes from?
The cell is the most complex, misunderstood machine in the entire world. There's thousands of microscopic occurances.
You need to dive more educationally before taking such a huge stab at eminent truths.
For the person that asked this question; it is an equal exchange between your creator and yourself.
by .DanielleFLOURINE on April 26th, 2008
Whatever you said in the following lines was automatically discredited by what you said in the first line: "That is really not true" - What gives you the authority to criticize Admiral Sir John for making a broad statement, and yet do the exact same thing yourself from the other point of view?
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 27th, 2008
Indeed. You're right. I can't prove there isn't a God. But then, neither can you prove there is. In fact, there is a very simple question that undoes all theology: Where did God come from? The standard answer: "God has always existed." is illogical. EVERYTHING has a beginning.
by Anonymous on April 27th, 2008
Why does what Danielle wrote in her last sentence remind me of autoerotica?! ;-)
by philosopher-saint on April 27th, 2008
Admiral Sir John Apr, 27 2008 at 11:03 AM
Indeed. You're right. I can't prove there isn't a God. But then, neither can you prove there is. In fact, there is a very simple question that undoes all theology: Where did God come from? The standard answer: "God has always existed." is illogical. EVERYTHING has a beginning.
I SAID UNDER THESE TERMS THAT IT CAN'T BE TRUE IF YOU RULE OUT COMPLETELY THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD.
Take a reading class kiddo.
by .DanielleFLOURINE on April 27th, 2008
Ya' know, D, you've an essentially sound argument here. Then you hadda get impatient and start shouting and all. Also, gotta confine yerself to your thoughts/argument and leave off the 'ad hominem' stuff (nasty)! [my guess = yer a youngster? Don't give up on this yet!] ;-)
by philosopher-saint on April 27th, 2008
Lol I get frustrated with people a lot less intellegent than I am.
I wrote in caps for the special person above me.
by .DanielleFLOURINE on April 27th, 2008
Nobody is doubting the incredible complexity of the cell, or the incredible way in which physics dictate our daily lives; but saying that those things are evidence of some sort of grand architect creates a great disconnect - that argument still fails to explain, as ASJ brought up, how anyone/thing could have "always" existed.
.
It's especially funny how some creationists try to use science to prove the existence of god by bringing up the "all matter comes from preexisting matter" rule, but then claiming god is beyond matter or doesn't have any physical form.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 27th, 2008
Not everyone is making that claim.
Go see EXPELLED by Ben Stein before you make a bold generalization of Christians.
A lot of us just claim that all of this life sustaining information has a designer.
Obviously, people aren't educated enough if they think this perfectly coexisting World came from lighting, and a mud puddle.
by .DanielleFLOURINE on April 27th, 2008
They didn't take enough Physics, Organic Chemistry, or Biological Chemistry in school.
by .DanielleFLOURINE on April 27th, 2008
Sheeet. Gotta go to work; no X now fer my 2 farthings! Great thread! ;-)
by philosopher-saint on April 27th, 2008
Yet there's no evidence that it DIDN'T. Man invented God (or Gods) to explain those things that science/learning didn't yet have explanations for. It's really that simple. Science will, eventually, figure out how it all started, and then we won't need God anymore. Even if you completely discount the existence of God, an explanation remains. It simply hasn't been discovered yet.
by Anonymous on April 27th, 2008
Exactly. As Richard Dawkins puts it, God is created through the "worship of gaps" - where ever there exists ignorance of how something has happened, a "gap" in knowledge, it is attributed to a deity. As science progresses, there are fewer and fewer gaps in which creationists can take refuge; eventually, there will be none, and all of the great modern religions will be exposed as the myths they are...enjoy your status on top of the world while it lasts :)
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 28th, 2008
when you, the commenter, give God a name, then you have something specific to work with. the word God by itself is an invention. and it becomes a crutch for people to hang onto. "Oh, I love God. He is my Lord. I have a personal relationship with God. God loves the USA. God bless America." It is all meaningless mumbo jumbo. there are specific names for the creator. they need to be used. to separate the meaningless from the meaningful. we humans cant arbitrarily give a name to the creator and expect it to work. we have to use a name that is historical and has meaning and is a personal name. the word ...GOD is a substitute name, a symbolic name, a biblical name that the translators used instead of the greek word theos. How meaningless is that name. worthless.
by DudeLer on April 28th, 2008
I use the TERM "God" to refer to all dieties, by whatever name they are called.
by Anonymous on April 28th, 2008
Now that's just getting into semantics. As I always say, who cares about the actual words; it's the thought that counts.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on April 28th, 2008
Exactly.
by Anonymous on April 28th, 2008