What is the true purpose of human progression? Is it all about God?

[Mental Gridlock]

theblueprint_Nick :

You have explained how Everything is about God provided that he exists and that those who don't believe it are in defiance of reality. But the other side of the coin is that you must show, in order to prove your argument, that "everything is about God" is true provided that God DOES NOT exist, unless you can prove that GOD EXISTS. You have half of an argument.

 

[Lisa!]

Maybe...

Sometimes I've wished that I'd never been born so that I didn't have to feel depression, or feel anything at all. Maybe God wants to see people struggle with these thoughts.

I don't know why I feel so sad when I read what you wrote.maybe because I think just like you.
This is my question always:why do we have to tolerate this life?
And the answer is because of God.
But why I have to tolerate all problems because of smeone who doen't care about my situation at all.he knows that I have so many troubles and he's able to solve them but he doesn't.They say he loves you even more than what you or parents do but I say I can't believe it.So I nag a lot about my situation and start arguing with God.
and then I feel better.I remember some events in past that I thought it couldn't have been worse but then it turned to be so nice to me.I lost sth but get a better thing later.and sometimes inverse...
I remember this quote"our wisdom is a kind of madness in compare with God wisdom."
And that's true.really true.we shoud find what's the reason of our existence and then we are able to know God better.
maybe we came to this world to prove sth.maybe we came here to prove our love to God.you know this is a wonderful world and there are lots of temptation whish sometimes cause we do sth against God's rules and we're here to prove that we stay in love with God and we never do sth against his will.maybe...
I'm still in doubt but I'm trying to know"what's the reason of my existence"then I could know"who am I and what I'm looking for."

 

[Huckleberry]

How can everything be about God if nobody can prove there is a God? Which God is everything about? Your God? How do you know your God is the only God? Does your God talk to you? If he doesn't talk to you directly then how do you know what he wants you to do?

This all relies on faith, not reason. Nick's argument is based in faith and can't be argued with using reason. Nick may believe that everything in his life happens because it is a part of God's blueprint for the universe. Unless someone can disprove God then there is a possibility that he is correct. But also, until someone can prove the existence of God he could also be wrong. Seems pointless to me, and debates like this in history have ended up at the point of a sword or a public burning or hanging. If one truly desires peace then it is best to let people make their own decisions based on their faith.

If God were proven then people would not need faith anymore. God could be rationalised. Without faith then how could we choose to obey God of our own apparently free will? By trying to prove the existence of God religion defeats itself, just as science does trying to disprove God. If religion tries to prove anything it only disproves God, and if science proves anything then they work to prove God. This is why religion relies on faith and science relies on reason.

I come to this conclusion just based on the definitions of science and religion from the thread Is Science a Religion? Conclusions based on definitions are generally pretty weak, but what can be said reasonably about God?

 

[DM]

If God were proven then people would not need faith anymore.

By trying to prove the existence of God religion defeats itself, just as science does trying to disprove God.

What if God was hinted as a superior being just to create a mental law? What happens when you erase God from our lives? I think it's fair to extrapolate mayham and total destruction on Earth since 80 percent of us believe in a God. Besides enshrined laws that keeps us alert of what we can and cannot do, it is moral values (i.e what happens if I burn in hell) that keeps us sane and hence less violence is commited.

 

[Radagast97]

I used to be an atheist and I would have told you then that I never thought about God. I believe in God now, and so looking back in retrospect I can see that what I was doing I did in spite of God, knowing He exists, and doing what I did to show my distaste for Him and in my ultimate act of contempt, deny Him. I didn't believe in God but when I was full of wrath I did. When I was full of curses I charged Him with all of them. I would have never admitted that even to myself but I know it to be true now.

Either you believed in god or didn't. If you were full of rage at him, then, by definition, you were not an atheist. To say you were doesn't sound like you were being honest with yourself.

There are certainly atheist that rage against theism, but that's not the same thing.

Regards,
Glenn

 

[Radagast97]

What happens when you erase God from our lives? I think it's fair to extrapolate mayham and total destruction on Earth since 80 percent of us believe in a God.

This is a conclusion without supporting argument. Buddhists have lived in this world for some time with few believing in a god, or certainly no god like you define, all without mayhem and destruction. Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

Besides enshrined laws that keeps us alert of what we can and cannot do, it is moral values (i.e what happens if I burn in hell) that keeps us sane and hence less violence is commited.

You are again assuming that people will be immoral without laws handed down by god. Buddhist and atheist tend to contradict that notion. Assuming you don't define immorality in terms of your specific god's rules, but rather those used by most of humanity.

Glenn

 

[DM]

Buddhists have lived in this world for some time with few believing in a god, or certainly no god like you define, all without mayhem and destruction. Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

That's completely different, they did not believe in a God. They adapted to secular beliefs.

Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

Recent wars do not coincide with your view.

You are again assuming that people will be immoral without laws handed down by god.

What is a religious person without moral laws handed down by their deity? I am not talking about secular people that learn to live moraly without a God. I have read some would reject life as it is if they learned God did not exist.

 

[Jameson]

theblueprint_Nick :

You have explained how Everything is about God provided that he exists and that those who don't believe it are in defiance of reality. But the other side of the coin is that you must show, in order to prove your argument, that "everything is about God" is true provided that God DOES NOT exist, unless you can prove that GOD EXISTS. You have half of an argument.

He hasn't proven anything. He's simply giving us his opinion under his interpretation of the word "about".

 

[theblueprint_Nick]

Yes, Jameson. You are correct. I guess I wasn't specifically clear about "about". About, I say, would mean all things to be done either for God or against God. Let me get micro for a second. I brush my teeth in the morning so that when I go out into the world I can go in a presentable, clean manner in hopes that I might attract or render the attention of another to perhaps tell them about God. If I go out with foul breath then not many would be in favor of speaking with me face to face. It might be said that they should be brushed simply because they are dirty. True, but when I brushed them before I believed, I wanted them clean for my sake, but now I want them clean for God's sake. Anything put into motion that is not ULTIMATELY for God is against God. That is my claim. Ultimately I believe God holds the truth, establishes truth and anything outside His truth is a lie and false. I also believe that every religion outside of mine is false and so negating the thought that we all worship the same God because we don't. I believe they are false because they center around what man can do for himself with(maybe) God's help and not what God can do for a man, period. Self-realization, transcendency, and all such things I reject because it's man-centered.

Also Jameson, If I did not KNOW that the heart of every man knows of God's existence then my belief would be in vain. I do not hold to the common definition of "belief", but what I believe about God I know and not just believe.

If I presented what I believe to be A truth and not THE truth then I would not differ from any other religion or belief. If what I presented did not offend the heart of every person that did not believe then it would not be what I claim it to be. The truth isn't something that can be contorted to fit the ideal of an individuals perception of "truth" because doing so is a blatant contradiction. The truth hurts to the core of every man(I mean man/woman) because it reveals falsehood. Now if I say this is truth or that is truth then it can be quickly dismissed because I am but I man. But if I say that God says this is the truth, then it becomes something to look into. It is a bold thing to say and it must endure the test of scrutiny and to some it appears as though it doesn't but the subject still stands through the ages. One thing that still remains is a man who seeks an answer that forever remains unanswered because what he seeks he already knows and what he says he asks is, "Does God exist?" but what he really asks in his heart is, "How can I become God?"

I know how this looks. "Why isn't it clear?", "Why sound so evasive?". My purpose is not to give "proof" that God exists because like I said before, you cannot measure omnipotence. That's what is sought to be done in proving/disproving God. God is not measured in the scientific method or a mathematical formula.

This all relies on faith, not reason. Nick's argument is based in faith and can't be argued with using reason.

- Huckleberry

I receive my reason from my faith. I am using reason but just not your inner workings of reason. A statement such as this is a quick way to discredit a message of faith. I must argue then, if I receive my reason from my faith, do you then receive your reason by means of no faith? If you have no faith and believe only what you want to believe without God to tell you what you should or should not not do, then who's to say that murder is wrong? Common sense? Conscience? Social majority? It made sense to Hitler to wipe out the Jews and all who were not part of his arian race. It made sense to the many who were under the sway of his deceptive influence.

If one truly desires peace then it is best to let people make their own decisions based on their faith.

People are sadistically murdered under the faith of satanic cults. Are they best left alone to make their own decisions? If justice crys out, then who's justice should we render? Yours? Mine? Or do you punish them but tell them at the same time, "You weren't really wrong at all. Your way of life is just not as good as mine and you're really just a victim of discrimination under the powers that are currently in authority." Communism is strictly atheist because it shifts the position of the state as God. It demands all reliance to be on the state. No matter how you look at it, the leaders of a fascist country, whether it be lead by one man or a few men, want to be God and denying Him as they may, they want His authority. Everything they do is about God, or rather, about becoming like God, rebelling against his ordained order of things and mans position in the world.

These are the things that need to be discussed because like I said, this is what it's really about and it's also the most controversial. :) If it was between religion and politics I think that religion is by far the most sensitive.

 

[Huckleberry]

I receive my reason from my faith. I am using reason but just not your inner workings of reason. A statement such as this is a quick way to discredit a message of faith. I must argue then, if I receive my reason from my faith, do you then receive your reason by means of no faith? If you have no faith and believe only what you want to believe without God to tell you what you should or should not not do, then who's to say that murder is wrong? Common sense? Conscience? Social majority? It made sense to Hitler to wipe out the Jews and all who were not part of his arian race. It made sense to the many who were under the sway of his deceptive influence.

I don't believe that a person can reason from faith. Their epistemologies are mirror images of each other. Faith does not require reason and reason does not require faith. As far as I know, God himself does not direct the action of man. If he does then it is without our knowledge. This goes into the argument of determinism and free will.

Who is to say that murder is wrong? This is a moral dilemma that can be approached using either reason or faith. One could say that murder is wrong because God's scripture says it is wrong and that requires no reason. A satanistic cult could claim that their scriptures say it is right and that also would require no reason. Hitler could argue his belief that murder is right based on genetic purity and he would argue his point using reason. One could also argue that it is wrong to commit murder from a social stability standpoint or human rights, and nowhere in their argument would be anything that requires belief in God.

You believe in God and that is fine. It seems that you believe that belief in God is what motivates all people to do anything. It is fine that you believe that, but it does not make it true. In order to communicate the truth you need to provide evidence. You would need to provide proof of God. That is why I wrote my previous post the way I did. You cannot expect people to accept your faith based argument without reason, and on the same note, nobody can disprove your faith with reason unless they also can disprove the existence of God. This is why these debates rage out of control on a global scale.

These are the things that need to be discussed because like I said, this is what it's really about and it's also the most controversial.

This is what it is really about for you. A person who does not believe in God does not use God as the motivation for their actions. You can believe they are influenced by God unknowingly, but to try to force anyone to agree with you is wrong. Religion shouldn't try to prove its faith is valid. It should just believe it. Let scientists use reason and skepticism to reveal the universe.

 

[Lisa!]

People are sadistically murdered under the faith of satanic cults. Are they best left alone to make their own decisions? If justice crys out, then who's justice should we render? Yours? Mine? Or do you punish them but tell them at the same time, "You weren't really wrong at all. Your way of life is just not as good as mine and you're really just a victim of discrimination under the powers that are currently in authority." Communism is strictly atheist because it shifts the position of the state as God. It demands all reliance to be on the state. No matter how you look at it, the leaders of a fascist country, whether it be lead by one man or a few men, want to be God and denying Him as they may, they want His authority. Everything they do is about God, or rather, about becoming like God, rebelling against his ordained order of things and mans position in the world.

You know I think everything is about human.Why do human try to do sth against/for God?I think coz of himself.I can't explain it well but you know human is so selfish.He believes or denies God coz he loves himself.God don't need us but we need him.he created us selfish but gave us the chance to step out of our sel-love circle if we try.At first we accept him coz we're selfish and don't want to hurt ourselves in this world and also the other world .some people just worship God coz they're afraid of their destiny here and after death.but some of people after trying hard,get the place that they worship God coz they love him.they think they have no existence and everything is God.
some people denies God coz they want to do whatever they want in this world,they try to reject God and then there would be nothing to limit them about things they want to do.
and I think most of people in authority try to have God's power.some of them try to do it by misusing people's religious beliefs.they pretend to be so religious but they aren't.

 

[Radagast97]

What happens when you erase God from our lives? I think it's fair to extrapolate mayham and total destruction on Earth since 80 percent of us believe in a God.

Buddhists have lived in this world for some time with few believing in a god, or certainly no god like you define, all without mayhem and destruction. Typically with a great deal less wars in the name of religion, as a matter of fact.

That's completely different, they did not believe in a God. They adapted to secular beliefs.

So if you don't originally believe in a god, then not having it doesn't result in mayhem and total destruction, but having it and losing it does. A broad statement, with no support, and something that seems to fly in the face of the loss of belief in god in Europe, and more distantly, in the Soviet Union, with the imposition of communism.

Recent wars do not coincide with your view.

Hmm, does that mean you can show me a war that was fought in the name of Buddhism, or that there are no wars fought in the name of religion today (hint, perhaps we should direct our attention to the middle east for this one).

What is a religious person without moral laws handed down by their deity?

I think I fall into that category. As someone that's been working toward the priesthood (Zen Buddhism) for nine years, having no belief in a diety or god, yet living a moral life. I don't consider priest or intendent priest as secular.

I am not talking about secular people that learn to live moraly without a God. I have read some would reject life as it is if they learned God did not exist.

Yes, and I've read that some would learn to fly if they just knew how to breath correctly (TM). Just because you've read it doesn't mean it's true. Provide some support for such a statement, if you want to make such a statement. Otherwise, it's just another unsupported internet assertion.

Glenn

 

[theblueprint_Nick]

What you say, Huckleberry, I fully and wholeheartedly reject. You are under the impression that all religion is unintelligable, requiring no thought, simply acting blindly without the use of reason.

You can believe they are influenced by God unknowingly, but to try to force anyone to agree with you is wrong.

That's a pretty bold statement. You sound a little like me, almost completely certain that this is indeed wrong. Can you prove it?

 

[hypnagogue]

It's clear that you can't talk about God unless you have absolute beliefs about who He is. And this I know because without a dogmatic belief, God becomes less than who God really is.

It should also be clear from PF policy that you can't argue from absolute, dogmatic beliefs about God in these forums. It's evident at this point that your methods and concerns in this thread far outpace the limitations we've set on theistic discussions.