Do not do good, but happiness. Good is also evil, dark rod, now you will understand why. Religions say that the souls come here to develop high qualities: forgiveness, compassion, etc., and divided according to level of development. BUT! Who are the souls - are we or the demons who come to feed on our suffering? Good and evil are facets of the same coin, no good without evil, but whether it actually is good? No development is necessary, man is created perfect, just apparent imperfection is the result of temptation, also perfect. Perfection can never be lost, it can only hang like a computer from overload for a certain time, that's the time and lasts for centuries. "What to do?"you ask. Answer: nothing, just let it recover, and any action will always only complicate everything. Any action will only prolong the Arab League, to restore only needs inaction. It is foolish to try to perfect the creation of God, which is already perfect. You do not think about how the blood runs in your body, she does it completely, so why do people constantly live with fears and think about life trying to improve it all the time, why would she just not trust her own body. What is common between cancer, nuclear explosion and childbirth is the process of uncontrolled division, even written not by chance as if "demons controlled". But the way it is, demons are profitable (according to their erroneous opinion) prevent the natural restoration of the divine plan, in which there is no evil and everyone is happy in Unity. We are all perfect from the beginning and always, perfection can not be lost, the thread with the Creator will never break, it can only be confused, what demons are actively doing and imposing false values on us under the guise of developing the mind and soul, in which we continue to give birth to maintaining the existence of mortality and feeding their world thereby. How to unravel the tangle? There is only one way: not to do anything, just relax and go with the flow, the perfection will unravel itself, the main thing is not to allow to confuse further, the most important thing: to stop childbirth, so that the posthumous world ceases to exist, from which comes the strongest influence on us. Why don't we remember our lives before we were born? To stay stupid. Why do we have a strong desire to reproduce, and with different women? To continue to give birth as much as possible.
Concentration of attention on breathing eliminates any dependence and attachment, and also heals mental pain, is the best a wedge, which knocks out any other a wedge. And the increased concentration with shutdown of other thoughts is the highest pleasure among existing. I noticed an interesting feature, only free air, for the rest you have to pay. Perhaps this is no coincidence, because if you take the money for the air, the person will begin to focus on it, and from this he will be happy, and from this man can not be controlled. False interests are instilled deliberately to divert attention, in this both systems are involved-human and from the world of souls, the dark do not want to lose power even for the sake of happiness with all that is better.
Man should be happy, not good, and good all evils and pulling in our world. Happy hard to look at the suffering, good-this is the reverse side of the coin with evil, and therefore also evil. It is necessary not to allow evil, to live with happy thoughts, otherwise the desire to help attracts events at which it is necessary to apply this desire already in practice. Himself has tried similar, practiced healing, passers-by often became poorly so. The world is a mirror of our thoughts, we can afford neither evil, nor good not even in my thoughts only to enjoy with happiness and joy!
In India, there is an ancient legend about the God Brahma, who was completely alone. There was nothing but Brahma, and he was very bored. Brahma wanted to play a game, but there was no one to play with. Then he created the beautiful goddess Maya, just for fun. When Maya appeared and Brahma explained to her the meaning of her existence, she said, "Well, let's play the most exciting game, only you will do what I say." Brahma agreed, and following Maya's instructions, created the Universe. He created the Sun and the stars, the moon and the planets. Then he made life on Earth: animals, oceans, atmosphere, and everything else.
Maya said: "how beautiful is the illusory world you created! And now I want you to create an animal so smart that it can appreciate the beauty of your work." And Brahma created men. When the creation was completed, he asked Maya if the game would start soon.
"Right now, "she replied, grabbed Brahma, cut into thousands of tiny pieces, put those pieces into each person, and said," the Game has begun! I'll try to make you forget who you are, and you try to find yourself again!»
Maya created a Dream, and Brahma is still trying to remember who he really is until today. Brahma is here within us, and Maya does not allow him to get out of oblivion.
When we awaken from Sleep, we become Brahma again, remembering our Divinity. And when Brahma within us says, " I am awake! But where are the rest of me?"we comprehend Maya's cunning and share the truth with others who are also destined to Wake up one day. In the crowd of drunks sober not so sad, if there are at least two. The more sober, the merrier. Start with yourself, then others will begin to change — and so on until all the drugged, all the gathered sober up.
Don Miguel Ruiz, "the Mastery of love»
And Maya who, then, is the chief of demons to this day?) It began to play then, the game turned into hell with suffering, apparently does not want to share power with Brahma, that prevents his recovery at any cost((
Topic: Why do you believe God exists? - page 3. (Read 7902 times)
The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.
I want to understand this
A short summary is below.
The link at the bottom has a longer explanation.
Claim #2 The Coherence Theory of Truth is the best known system that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.
The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality.
Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth
The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality.
Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth
Thank you CoinCube
The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.
I want to understand this
A short summary is below.
The link at the bottom has a longer explanation.
Claim #2 The Coherence Theory of Truth is the best known system that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.
The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality.
Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth
The Coherence theory of truth provides us with a mechanism for testing both provable and unprovable truth. Coherence theory holds that a belief is true if we can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
Coherence theory holds that a statement is true when it can be fully integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which is then tested against reality. Similarly an idea is false when it cannot be integrated into a group of complex ideas or if upon integration the set fails when tested against reality.
Another and more common word for an unprovable truth is an a priori truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth
The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.
I want to understand this
...
The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.
...
The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.
...
LOL. The same can be said about "The Truth of no God".
Looks like a lot of hand waving, nothing tangible.
Like I said before, we differ in a way we perceive the reality around us.
I am looking at what it is.
You are looking at what it could be.
I am not afraid of death, and I am in full control of my life. My mistakes are mine and mine only. So are my successes.
Not your God's...
Not your God's...
Fair enough from your frame of reference given the assumptions you have chosen to embrace your conclusions cannot be falsified. In the words of Bruce Charlton you have made your Big Decision.
Ignoring your attempts to straw man I agree with your comments on Science. You are, however, missing something critical here. Science is indeed the best objective tool we have to acquire new and highly accurate data about the universe. It tells us very little about truth.
Truth is the process in which we incorporate the data we have about the universe including the data from science and our own experiences into a coherent and accurate picture of the universe. It is a conscious integrative process.
Coherence Theory of Truth
http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm
Quote from: Austin Cline
Put simply: a belief is true when we are able to incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
...
Statements can’t really be verified in isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and drop it, it isn’t simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our visual perception.
So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, then one might conclude that a statement can be classified as “true” not so much because it can be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality.
...
Statements can’t really be verified in isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and drop it, it isn’t simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our visual perception.
So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, then one might conclude that a statement can be classified as “true” not so much because it can be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality.
The Truth of God can indeed be tested. To do so requires extrapolating and determining the effects the belief has on every other belief one holds and then testing that entire complex against the alternative complex centered on around a disbelief in God.
This can be done on individual level. On a larger scale it plays out empirically. People live out their belief structures and the logical consequences of their ideologies can be observed over time.
...
Given this reality no one will ever be able to prove God to you. However, that inability does not mean God does not exist. Thus instead of approaching the question from the perspective of looking for proof to reject disbelief I recommend instead trying to look at the world holistically from the perspective that God does exist examine how that changes your perspective on things. Then compare that worldview to your current one in its entirety.
...
Given this reality no one will ever be able to prove God to you. However, that inability does not mean God does not exist. Thus instead of approaching the question from the perspective of looking for proof to reject disbelief I recommend instead trying to look at the world holistically from the perspective that God does exist examine how that changes your perspective on things. Then compare that worldview to your current one in its entirety.
...
Well, that is true. I cannot prove that Zeus does exist nor that he does not exist. However, there are probabilities, and those are not in favor of Zeus or any other Gods, including your personal, pet God.
As for assuming that God does exist and looking at the world, of course, you can delude yourself into believing that God created snowflakes, bees, and all the complexity we see in nature. Just like notbatman is convinced that Earth is flat because he looks out of his window and sees a flat horizon, he steps outside his parents' house, and he sees flat horizon all around 360 deg. He deluded himself that the Earth is flat. The Bible confirms that. What other proof does he need? He is deluded, any rational observer will come to the same conclusion.
That is why it is important to validate what your senses are telling you. The scientific method is the best objective tool we have to discover the true nature of our universe. Other than that, it is a guessing game. He said, she said.
From where I am standing, I don't see any fundamental difference in your reasoning and notbatman's. You both are mistaken.
If you care about the truth, you follow the scientific method. You seek validation through observation and objective measurements.
If you don't care if what you believe is true, then it does not matter.
In the end, it is all about an emotional need that you have to believe in something greater no matter the evidence or lack thereof. Another reason could be that you (and people like you) are afraid of death and think that somehow (with some supernatural help) you will live in the afterlife somewhere in deep space (or wherever your imagination takes you).
I am not afraid of death, and I am in full control of my life. My mistakes are mine and mine only. So are my successes.
Not your God's, Zeus's, Allah's, Devil's, or any other fictional or non-fictional characters.
PS. God cannot be even considered as a subject of scientific studies, so this idea of God should not even cross your mind. There is nothing to consider. You cannot build a hypothesis, never mind prove it.
PPS. What is frustrating to see people like you come and proclaim that there is God somewhere. You cannot describe him, you have no proof, but you claim that your version (Judeo-Christian) God exists. Where is your Nobel prize?
In general some sort of god could be possible.
You have a very open mind Astargath, do you really believe that some sort of god exists?
What are the characteristics of this god? Immortal? Omniscient?
Where the FUCK did you get this from? I cannot believe what I am reading.
People don't believe in your God (or ANY OTHER GODS) because there is not a shred of evidence of your God's existence.
You not only make shit up in your own delusion, but you don't even understand why others see you as delusional and don't believe what you believe.
In the end, there will always be intellectually strong people and an intellectually weak who will need this extra supernatural help to get them through their day.
It actually has nothing to do with evidence, science, logic or any of that sort. It is a psychological defect that leads people into this delusion.
Be at peace af-newbie I am not accusing you of making those particular arguments. They are just the typical arguments I have often seen in some form or another.
Your argument is that the evidence for God's existence is not sufficient to compel you to believe in God so you don't. I understand your position. I also understand why you keep calling me delusional. I simply think you are mistaken.
You are correct that question ultimately has very little to do with evidence. It goes deeper then that and is related to how the available evidence is interpreted in the context of an individuals existing knowledge including the assumed axioms he or she applies when interpreting incoming evidence.
If you truly believe that God does not exist you will find confirmation for your disbelief everywhere. There is not sufficient data to compel you to abandon disbelief. Similarly if you truly believe in God you will find evidence supporting the glory of his existence every day.
The question is like a Bayesian inference that diverges to completely different conclusions when fed the same data set. This is because data itself is not ultimately separate from consciousness. Our knowledge is shaped by new data but new data is also shaped by our existing knowledge.
Given this reality no one will ever be able to prove God to you. However, that inability does not mean God does not exist. Thus instead of approaching the question from the perspective of looking for proof to reject disbelief I recommend instead trying to look at the world holistically from the perspective that God does exist examine how that changes your perspective on things. Then compare that worldview to your current one in its entirety.
Bruce Charlton who is a more eloquent writer then I expressed this in the following way.
The Big Decision about Life...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-big-decision-about-life.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
The Big Decision about Life is a metaphysical one - not a matter of 'evidence'. And that insight (metaphysics not evidence) is the first step.
The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.
As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.
And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.
On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).
Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.
On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.
The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.
As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.
And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.
On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).
Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.
On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.
We only truly believe your god doesn't exist. The one from the bible. In general some sort of god could be possible.
Where the FUCK did you get this from? I cannot believe what I am reading.
People don't believe in your God (or ANY OTHER GODS) because there is not a shred of evidence of your God's existence.
You not only make shit up in your own delusion, but you don't even understand why others see you as delusional and don't believe what you believe.
In the end, there will always be intellectually strong people and an intellectually weak who will need this extra supernatural help to get them through their day.
It actually has nothing to do with evidence, science, logic or any of that sort. It is a psychological defect that leads people into this delusion.
Be at peace af-newbie I am not accusing you of making those particular arguments. They are just the typical arguments I have often seen in some form or another.
Your argument is that the evidence for God's existence is not sufficient to compel you to believe in God so you don't. I understand your position. I also understand why you keep calling me delusional. I simply think you are mistaken.
You are correct that question ultimately has very little to do with evidence. It goes deeper then that and is related to how the available evidence is interpreted in the context of an individuals existing knowledge including the assumed axioms he or she applies when interpreting incoming evidence.
If you truly believe that God does not exist you will find confirmation for your disbelief everywhere. There is not sufficient data to compel you to abandon disbelief. Similarly if you truly believe in God you will find evidence supporting the glory of his existence every day.
The question is like a Bayesian inference that diverges to completely different conclusions when fed the same data set. This is because data itself is not ultimately separate from consciousness. Our knowledge is shaped by new data but new data is also shaped by our existing knowledge.
Given this reality no one will ever be able to prove God to you. However, that inability does not mean God does not exist. Thus instead of approaching the question from the perspective of looking for proof to reject disbelief I recommend instead trying to look at the world holistically from the perspective that God does exist examine how that changes your perspective on things. Then compare that worldview to your current one in its entirety.
Bruce Charlton who is a more eloquent writer then I expressed this in the following way.
The Big Decision about Life...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-big-decision-about-life.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
The Big Decision about Life is a metaphysical one - not a matter of 'evidence'. And that insight (metaphysics not evidence) is the first step.
The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.
As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.
And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.
On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).
Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.
On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.
The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.
As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.
And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.
On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).
Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.
On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.
People don't believe in your God (or ANY OTHER GODS) because there is not a shred of evidence of your God's existence.
Haven't you seen the thread, Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322?
The proof for the existence of God is all around us. You simply need to accept it like you accept other science.
Yea, specially on the last page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.9880
Where you still couldn't answer.
People don't believe in your God (or ANY OTHER GODS) because there is not a shred of evidence of your God's existence.
Haven't you seen the thread, Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322?
The proof for the existence of God is all around us. You simply need to accept it like you accept other science.
This argument is what atheists use for God.
Atheists believe that God is not worthy of worship
Yes they do usually with illogical emotionally laden arguments that typically fall into one of three categories.
1) Nature is cruel thus I decry God.
2) Humans are cruel thus I decry God.
3) I enjoy (insert vice here) and God forbids it thus I decry God.
The arguments are flawed, but to fully appreciate this you must first answer the question of what makes something worthy of worship. Then you can apply that assessment to God. Ultimately each individual needs to decide for themselves.
I found the following book an interesting read. It addresses the common arguments above and others and does so with a very logical approach and structure.
https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Bible-Exodus-Dennis-Prager/dp/1621577724
This is said well.
Jesus came from the Father, spiritually, to inhabit an earthly, human form. When Jesus accomplished perfection, and the punishment for the sins of mankind, and the following resurrection, He essentially did away with the imperfection of mankind.
Even though man is stuck in his imperfect genetics at present, He has the ability to choose like God does. So, there is nothing that can coerce a man from his choice to accept God or not... just like nobody can coerce God. Enticement, encouragement, invitation, maybe. But no coercion.
Mankind is, and is becoming like God. God is doing this. We simply don't see it, yet. In the resurrection we will find out if we used our God-power to accept God or to reject ourselves.
This argument is what atheists use for God.
Atheists believe that God is not worthy of worship
Yes they do usually with illogical emotionally laden arguments that typically fall into one of three categories.
1) Nature is cruel thus I decry God.
2) Humans are cruel thus I decry God.
3) I enjoy (insert vice here) and God forbids it thus I decry God.
The arguments are flawed, but to fully appreciate this you must first answer the question of what makes something worthy of worship. Then you can apply that assessment to God. Ultimately each individual needs to decide for themselves.
I found the following book an interesting read. It addresses the common arguments above and others and does so with a very logical approach and structure.
https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Bible-Exodus-Dennis-Prager/dp/1621577724
Where the FUCK did you get this from? I cannot believe what I am reading.
People don't believe in your God (or ANY OTHER GODS) because there is not a shred of evidence of your God's existence.
You not only make shit up in your own delusion, but you don't even understand why others see you as delusional and don't believe what you believe.
In the end, there will always be intellectually strong people and an intellectually weak who will need this extra supernatural help to get them through their day.
It actually has nothing to do with evidence, science, logic or any of that sort. It is a psychological defect that leads people into this delusion.
Some are affected more, some are affected less. That is why we see such a spectrum of various religions, denominations, and interpretations of the scriptures. It is a disease of the mind.
Religion is a virus that spreads from grandparents to parents to children.
Ps. You like Hasidic Jews, maybe you should join them? Ask your wife if she would join. LOL Watch this on Netflix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPn5oQNutI
PPS. You can end this right now, ask your God to post here or on youtube. Let's go!
I am not going to even ask how did you determine that. Too tired to deconstruct your delusion in full glory.
Then I won't answer how I determined that. =)
Your wish is granted.
Ultimately people need to decide for themselves what is worthy of worship and why.
This argument is what atheists use for God.
Atheists believe that God is not worthy of worship
Yes they do usually with illogical emotionally laden arguments that typically fall into one of three categories.
1) Nature is cruel thus I decry God.
2) Humans are cruel thus I decry God.
3) I enjoy (insert vice here) and God forbids it thus I decry God.
The arguments are flawed, but to fully appreciate this you must first answer the question of what makes something worthy of worship. Then you can apply that assessment to God. Ultimately each individual needs to decide for themselves.
I found the following book an interesting read. It addresses the common arguments above and others and does so with a very logical approach and structure.
https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Bible-Exodus-Dennis-Prager/dp/1621577724
Now you know how I feel about YOUR God.
The same way you feel about science and yourself.
1. Again, why don't you worship Zeus?
Because Zeus is not worthy of worship.
I am not going to even ask how did you determine that. Too tired to deconstruct your delusion in full glory.
Are you sure Zeus is not worthy? I have a book that says otherwise.
Now you know how I feel about YOUR God. The same way you feel about Zeus.
1. Again, why don't you worship Zeus?
Because Zeus is not worthy of worship.
Because Zeus is not worthy of worship.
This argument is what atheists use for God.
Atheists believe that God is not worthy of worship
1. Again, why don't you worship Zeus?
Because Zeus is not worthy of worship.
2. Saudi Arabia is a very good example of what the Judeo-Christian state would look like. Have you seen what Hasidic Jewish communities look like?
Yes I have and your comparison is poor. A better comparison would be to comparing them to the Amish. Did you know that Judaism is decentralized? Each synagogue and rabbi are not bound by the decisions/interpretations of other synagogues. Similarly individuals within Judaism are free to change to a different synagogue if they wish though this might require moving. The different denominations of Christianity provide a similar function.
No one intelligent wants a state church. That is a terrible idea and a recipe for religious oppression as history shows. A population that is largely and voluntary grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a state church.
3. Just because your carefully constructed delusion provides you with some psychological comfort, it does not mean it is the right thing to do.
It's not about psychological comfort that is tangential. Ultimately understanding God is about accurately understanding reality and bringing our lives into alignment with said reality.
Jump to: