There are things, such as God, ghosts, and spirits, that many people do not believe in because they say they can't see them. This got me to wondering...
Do we need to see it to believe it? Or do we need to believe it in order to see it?
No. You dont have to see things to believe them. I dont see God but I still believe in him. I dont see spirits/ghosts but I still believe there are paranormal out there.
i dont deny the existnce of god. i just dont think that any religions have come close to gods true defenition. buddhism hower is temptively close. but in general organized religion is a big sham, individuality is key. people as individuals should create there own personal dogmas because that is all that metters. I am my religion, and to a certaint extent i am my god. I belive in my self, there for the things ive come to beleive (on a personal level) are fact.
Religion is not fact, it is myth; it is the telling of tales in order to get the point across. people making myth into fact is purely rediculouse. its like me saying that i believe that jack and the beanstalk actually existed and that he went to see a giant in the sky. Though the jack and the beanstalk is a fairytale, it gives a good moral in the end. religion is nothing but a fairy tale.
__________________ The Revolution will not be Televised
I think there are things that we need first to believe in, in order to see them... like god for example, it is an abstract concept, and to understand it in someway one must reach it by his own intuition, we cannot expect that it can be proved in some usual physical way. Maybe its not all knowledge that comes to us from our five senses, there are other ways to acquire knowledge... by intuition.
niether. You can very much prove the existance of oxygen. But you could never see it. That's why when people say I don't believe in God, I am always quick to respond "Well I don't believe in oxygen, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
God, on the other hand, only exists in the eyes of the faithful.
There is no proof that God exists. If you choose not to believe in oxygen even though it's been proven to exist, and there's not even any speculation on the matter of its existence, well then that's just silly
Err, yes. Frankly that strikes me as an exceptionally dumb thing to say, AOR. You seriouly thought that was a good turn of phrase? Not only does no rational person disbelieve in oxygen, the comparison between the two is fatuous. Direct evidence can be shown for oxygen, as Morgoth points out.
Which gets to the point of the thread. Seeing something is just a form of evidence. The important point is whether evidence can be produced of existence, which might be seeing it (whch is not, incidentally, incontrovertible, depending on circumstance), or it might not.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
But seeing doesn't equal evidence of existance. If I'm looking at a picture of Darth Vader does that mean that he exist? Of course not. Darth Vader is nothing but one of Lucas figment of imagination.
Now let's say I'm looking at a picture of Batman. Does that mean he exist? No, but that doesn't mean that someone can't become Batman. After all who is Batman? A highly skill Detective with incredible fighting skills and tons of gadgets that can be prototype. That isn't impossible to become. So the chances of a guy actually becoming a Batman are high. Whereas the chances of Darth Vader happening are none.
And what is the point of all this nonsense? One word "Possibility".
btw-don't mind me I was watching ROTJ and then read some Detective Comics. I just saw this thread.
I can assure you mate Oxygen does exist. If you want proof go stand outside when it is windy. It makes up about 20 % of the stuff that is hitting you.
I wouldn't have to see God to believe he existed. If someone could present a plausable, full proof theory theory as to his existence, I would certainly believe that. Yet so far this 'magic' theory has evaded me.
I do though believe in God, for two reasons.
1. As Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas where keen to point out, there must be a reason that the universe has occured. Everything that exists is based on cause and effect, therefore there must be an intial cause. Note one could argue that the ultimate effcet is actually the intial cause .... but who cares.
2. Fear. I choose to believe in God, as i don't dare take the risk that he does exist. I.e. if he doesn't exist we die, and thats that, if he does exist and i don't believe in him.... well u know what happens.
Last edited by R.O.T. Yahman on Sep 24th, 2005 at 01:09 AM
If all religions are true then they are all false because they all contradict eachother. If you think christiananity is "special" than explain why your religion is the truth while all other religions are false.
And what does god have to do with a human organised religion?
If religions are crap god most be crap? If religions are stupid god most be stupid... You have to remember that religion is made and controlled by humans. Of course its going to suck, but its hardly proof that god does or does not exist.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 19th, 2005 09:20 PM
If you want proof go stand outside when it is windy. It makes up about 20 % of the stuff that is hitting you. 
