The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Convince me that God exists

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

These concepts of “Godhood” almost necessarily make the idea of a “Universal” God impossible.

The idea of a Universal God assumes a classical pre-determined universe. But that is not how reality is.

Einstein rejected quantum theory on the basis that “God does not play Dice” – but everything about quantum mechanics that has been discovered in the last 100 years since supports the idea that reality is in fact fundamentally random.

Even the universe of classical Newtonian physics has no place for a God

But I guess no amount of logic will change the ideas of the “Trailer Park” people in the USA.
 
In the early 20th century, scientists discovered something new: that matter was not as we had imagined it to be. Matter was not solid. Matter had no colors. It gave off no smells, sounds or image. Matter was simply energy. The chair you sit in, the table you lean on, the house you live in, your dogs, the people around you, buildings, space, stars—in short, the whole material world exists as a form of energy.

In the face of this unexpected discovery, all philosophies constructed on the basis of matter therefore suffered a scientific collapse. Science revealed the proof of something inside the human body but not belonging to it, something that perceived the entire physical world, but was not itself physical: the human soul.

The soul could not be explained in any way in terms of materialist claims. Darwinism, which produced countless fictitious tales regarding the imaginary evolution of species, remained silent in the face of the existence of the soul. Because the soul was not matter, it was a metaphysical concept. And metaphysics was something that materialists were completely unable to accept, because metaphysics did away with all the unconscious events, coincidences and random processes that they had deified. Metaphysics submitted evidence of a conscious creation, in other words, of the existence of Allah (God). That, in any case, was why materialists had been denying the existence of the soul ever since the days of Ancient Greece.

This struggle, which had persisted since Ancient Greece right up to the present, now became meaningless because there is an entity that makes a human being human, that lets you say, This is me. That, in other words, is your soul: It exists, and it belongs to Allah. Science definitively proved that the human soul observed all things as they were presented to it and that there could be no reference to any reality beyond these perceived images. To put it another way, it openly declared that the only absolute Entity was Allah.

This proof by science is of importance in convincing minds that deify materialist philosophy. In fact, though, all who possess reflection and intellect are aware that they possess a sublime soul. Anyone who can reason at all will understand that it is the soul that rejoices, thinks, decides, judges, experiences joy and excitement, loves, shows compassion, gets anxious, enjoys the taste of an apple, takes pleasure from listening to music, builds planes, raises skyscrapers and constructs laboratories in which it examines itself.

If human beings are possessed of souls, they cannot have been created haphazardly. There is a purpose behind their presence in this world. All people bear a soul that belongs to Allah and are being tested in this lifetime, after which they will be held responsible for all their thoughts and deeds. There is no randomness or aimlessness in life. There are no chance events, as Darwinists maintain. Everything has been created by the will of Allah to become part of the tests to which we are subjected. In this life, which will end in death, the only thing that will be left behind is the body. The soul, on the other hand, will live for all eternity in the Hereafter, which is its true abode.

These are great glad tidings for anyone who realizes he has a soul and is able to appreciate its Creator. Darwinists, however, will continue to refuse this reality with all their means and maintain that they do not possess a soul. They will continue to refuse to accept that they will one day enter the presence of Almighty Allah, Whose existence they denied throughout the course of their lives. They will continue to regard themselves as randomly formed collections of atoms and will keep on dismissing the miraculous human consciousness that has discovered DNA, investigated the structure of the atom and has been amazed by the innermost workings of the cell.

The human soul is a terrible dilemma for Darwin and the supporters who came after him. It is the basic evidence which they cannot explain, which they cannot refute and cannot resolve. Allah has vanquished them by providing proof, of a scientific kind that they cannot deny: the insubstantiality of matter. In the face of this, any objections to the soul’s existence they may come up with are invalid and meaningless.
In His verses in the Qur’an, Allah tells us:

Who could be further astray than those who call on other things besides Allah, which will not respond to them until the Day of Resurrection and which are unaware of their prayers? When humanity is gathered together, they will be their enemies and will reject their worship. (Surat al-Ahqaf, 5-6)

Darwinists and materialists need to realize that the only absolute Entity is Allah. Confronted by this truth, all hollow, empty deceptions and superstitious faiths fall into an insuperable quandary. Allah has enfolded all things with His Sublime Might. All things belong to Him and are under His control. Denying creation and the existence of the soul cannot alter these facts one iota.

The world that the soul perceives is merely an illusion, a phantom and the sole absolute Entity Who rules the entire universe is Allah, Ruler and Lord of the Earth and sky. Henceforth, those with unclouded minds who understand this fact will look at the world from a different perspective and realize that Allah is their only savior. In order to attain salvation in the Hereafter, their true life, people need to behave in the light of that understanding.

Mar 15, 2008


Dr. Harun Yahya
 
These concepts of “Godhood” almost necessarily make the idea of a “Universal” God impossible.

The idea of a Universal God assumes a classical pre-determined universe. But that is not how reality is.

Not true. For that to stand, you have to set down a definition of God that doesn't fit the notions you're going to set it against -- sort of like designing a fort with the exact purpose of making sure that the forces you're going to attack with can beat it.

Einstein rejected quantum theory on the basis that “God does not play Dice” – but everything about quantum mechanics that has been discovered in the last 100 years since supports the idea that reality is in fact fundamentally random.

And so because Einstein had a cramped and limited version of God, that's supposed to mean something to the rest of us? What should be significant here is that he held to any notion of God at all.

Even the universe of classical Newtonian physics has no place for a God

LOL

Your approaches are canceling themselves: first, God needs a classical pre-determined universe; now, He doesn't fit in one.

The truth is that the nature of the universe doesn't say God can't be real, regardless of what that nature is.
 
I studied theology and my professors encouraged us to not accept anything without questioning and thinking it through logically, largely because they taught that believing for belief's sake isn't faith at all because it would never be "rooted" in anything.

"Rooted" is an awesome word.
Your professors were quite in line with the Bible, which highly compliments people who didn't believe what the Apostle Paul said (Acts, but I'm blanking on the chapter).

That there is religion which not only permits but recommends questioning it is to me an indication that it might be the 'real thing'. Any religion that tells human beings to shut up and obey and believe what they're told has to come from a charlatan, or else it's a statement that the Creator is merely a large-scale sadist.

Furthermore, acceptance of God shouldn't be viewed as "opposed" to science. Science and religion have different goals, not necessarily opposing ones. But just as some may use the Bible to reject science, others use science to reject God. This is becoming more pervasive, unfortunately.

Extremely well said!

Many early scientists ventured into science precisely because of their faith; in many cases, it was the belief in a God who operated not by daily whim but by established (faithful, trustworthy) rules that prompted scientific investigation: if He is faithful, what are the rules He uses?

The past is by nature somewhat circumstantial, be it scientific, historic, philosophic, or religious assertions. We were never there to observe it ourselves. We use logic to deduce it's meaning and come to conclusions no matter what it is.

That reminds me of a hike down into the Grand Canyon. We had on the one hand a Creationist holding forth on how it was all deposited during a single huge flood, and on the other an evolutionary geologist expounding how many millions of years it took.

In the spirit of real inquiry and a desire for truth, several of us enjoyed poking holes in both sides -- though my favorite part was when I could jump in and point to the wall we were going by and say that neither of their positions could explain what I was pointing at, and get them arguing with each other.

At any rate.... any God who made a Creation not worthy of the minds He gave us is out of the running, along with the claimants who aren't Creators at all.
 
The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Why anyone would choose to worship such a thing is bewildering to me.

This. :=D:
 

You're really buying that ignorant BS propaganda?

The only way that set of positions can be held is if one begins with the assumption that God ought to conform in all ways to one's personal preferences, regardless of historical reality and the consequent needs for communication work (let alone divine goals). It ignores the bulk of the Old Testament's message and focuses only on things that could possibly be complained about. It's only slightly less idiotic and intellectually dishonest than claiming the Bible is full of scientific errors.

One of the reasons I believe Christianity is that the Old Testament paints the picture of a God of surpassing faithfulness, unyielding steadfastness, and enduring grace in spite of all the crap humans could throw up/out.
 
You're really buying that ignorant BS propaganda?

The only way that set of positions can be held is if one begins with the assumption that God ought to conform in all ways to one's personal preferences, regardless of historical reality and the consequent needs for communication work (let alone divine goals). It ignores the bulk of the Old Testament's message and focuses only on things that could possibly be complained about. It's only slightly less idiotic and intellectually dishonest than claiming the Bible is full of scientific errors.

One of the reasons I believe Christianity is that the Old Testament paints the picture of a God of surpassing faithfulness, unyielding steadfastness, and enduring grace in spite of all the crap humans could throw up/out.

I think it's rather the other way around. Ethics are not a "personal preference." I do accept Hitchens' view that if there were a god who lived up to how he is portrayed, he ought to be opposed.
 
I think it's rather the other way around. Ethics are not a "personal preference." I do accept Hitchens' view that if there were a god who lived up to how he is portrayed, he ought to be opposed.

Ethics are rarely anything but a personal preference. The only exceptions I've found are religious and those derived from first principles -- even the ethics material I've seen on the TED talks is thoroughly subjective.

Opposing the God of the Bible as He is portrayed would mean opposing all justice, mercy, and love, because distort as you will, that's the portrayal there.

Looking at the caricatures atheists tend to throw up will certainly not convince anyone God exists or doesn't exist, because honest people will find them dishonest just as much as those of most cults.
 
Ethics are rarely anything but a personal preference. The only exceptions I've found are religious and those derived from first principles -- even the ethics material I've seen on the TED talks is thoroughly subjective.

Opposing the God of the Bible as He is portrayed would mean opposing all justice, mercy, and love, because distort as you will, that's the portrayal there.

Looking at the caricatures atheists tend to throw up will certainly not convince anyone God exists or doesn't exist, because honest people will find them dishonest just as much as those of most cults.

At least atheist caricatures of divinity are consistent, and that is a hallmark of honesty. The caricatures of god invented for the bible would have benefited from that.
 
You're really buying that ignorant BS propaganda?

The only way that set of positions can be held is if one begins with the assumption that God ought to conform in all ways to one's personal preferences, regardless of historical reality and the consequent needs for communication work (let alone divine goals). It ignores the bulk of the Old Testament's message and focuses only on things that could possibly be complained about. It's only slightly less idiotic and intellectually dishonest than claiming the Bible is full of scientific errors.

One of the reasons I believe Christianity is that the Old Testament paints the picture of a God of surpassing faithfulness, unyielding steadfastness, and enduring grace in spite of all the crap humans could throw up/out.

The usual faith blinkered thinking I see. Whether the Bible is a source or reference point for scientific fact can be debated. But, it its own terms it is clearly full of scientific errors that you have to be a true believer to ignore. Gloss over them all you will.

Likewise, it one thing to see that Biblical God as transmuted in the New Testament into a God of love. It's complete nonsense to see the Old Testament God as one of "surpassing faithfulness, unyielding steadfastness and enduring grace". He is an arbitrary tormentor, a celestial cat testing and playing with his subjects.

I don't say that the Bible or the Biblical God holds no truth in the metaphysical dimensions to which is lays claim, but, unless you import faith to it, it provides no more evidence or conviction of God's existence than the classical myths.

The conviction that God exists is a function of faith, which, in turn, if one wants to think in these terms, is a function of grace rather than argument.
 
He might appear that way to the ignorant. But the old law had a purpose: to show man that if God were to give him a list of do's and dont's he would fail. It's the knowledge of this failure that leads one to seek the grace of God, which is the avenue to salvation. This is why Jesus was a fulfillment of the law. But of course, that is a Biblical lesson to which you might retort one has to accept the Bible in the first place. But commentary on it is to some extent acceptance of some portion of it.

Conviction that anything exists that is outside our personal experience if a function of faith, faith in whom would relay the evidence.

No. I'm sorry for going anywhere near Godwin's Law, but I'm afraid it is the most apt analogy that comes to mind. It's like saying that Hitler helped Jews to understand the importance of having the security of their own state.

God's character as portrayed by the authors of the old testament is only an example of benevolence if one has already decided that God is benevolent, and any can incongruencies can just be dealt with by altering the plain meaning of words or reading selectively.
 
No. I'm sorry for going anywhere near Godwin's Law, but I'm afraid it is the most apt analogy that comes to mind. It's like saying that Hitler helped Jews to understand the importance of having the security of their own state.

God's character as portrayed by the authors of the old testament is only an example of benevolence if one has already decided that God is benevolent, and any can incongruencies can just be dealt with by altering the plain meaning of words or reading selectively.

Again this is nothing but prejudice. I'm not alone in having come to the conclusion that God is faithful and benevolent from reading the Old Testament. That's the constant theme, and the only way I can see to get around it is if you deliberately come to the book for the purpose of nitpicking and looking for reasons not to believe. You have to start with the assumption that your own cultural baggage is truth that can't be contested in order to get where you are. The biggest piece of baggage, perhaps, is the notion that the world we experience is the world the way it was meant to be; from there it's an easy step to believing that one's culture is the culture that was meant to be, etc.

The Hitler comparison is ludicrous, if for no other reason than that Hitler never claimed the Jews as his own, never tried to teach them a different way of life, never tried to lead them to aspire to reach and become better than they were, never established a covenant with them, never worked to deliver them from their enemies.....
 
...and there's the retreat into the pious "You wouldn't understand even if I told you..."

and.... /thread!
 
Maybe its the flu and fever making my thinking fuzzier than usual, but I have two discussions I would like to start, given all the discussion on religion lately (the second will get a thread of its own).

How could anyone Convince you that God exists?

There is no rational evidence at all to support this idea - the whole concept of a God can not be anything other than a delusion.

There are some sound evolutionary reasons why this delusion persists in human thinking - but these are not ones we should be proud of - certainly these have no truth in them.
 
He might appear that way to the ignorant. But the old law had a purpose: to show man that if God were to give him a list of do's and dont's he would fail. It's the knowledge of this failure that leads one to seek the grace of God, which is the avenue to salvation. This is why Jesus was a fulfillment of the law. But of course, that is a Biblical lesson to which you might retort one has to accept the Bible in the first place. But commentary on it is to some extent acceptance of some portion of it.

Conviction that anything exists that is outside our personal experience if a function of faith, faith in whom would relay the evidence.


"It might appear that way to the ignorant..." and then you concede that it is that way. LOL.

The replies on the issue of why the Old Testament God is such an irrational despot (so that we may ultimately come to appreciate the value of his grace) fully justify bankside' analogy to the beneficial lessons that the Jews can draw from Hitler.

That lists of dos and don'ts can lead to human failure, whereas God's grace provides a path to salvation, is a trite observation that hardly justifies an old Testament God and his antics. A more likely explanation is that the Old Testament reflects the belief of a sophisticated, but primitive, tribal context that is advanced in a subsequent rethink in the New Testament and probably needs subsequent advances.

All these rationalizations of the Bible and the Biblical God are just that. As is the God-tests-his-people-because-he-loves-them assertions. Clearly, one could just as easily say the same thing about a cat playing with mice.

It is perfectly possible to believe in the message of the Bible while still seeing it as a flawed product of its time.

I have no objection to folk believing in the tradition or the poetry or the truth that the the Bible reflects or even seeking to use it to convince other folk that God exists. But I do object to the denial that the latter is really an issue of faith and not faith-based apologias.

Sanctimony should not be allowed to replace critical thinking.

 
[SIZE=""]"It might appear that way to the ignorant..." and then you concede that it is that way. LOL.


This falls under the category of "making shit up": you quite sanctimoniously decree that he said something he didn't.

Sanctimony should not be allowed to replace critical thinking.

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Convicted by your own words..
 
^ Isn't forgiving a continuing and repeated evil, for which no remorse or change of heart has been shown, the same as condoning it? Just asking.
 
Everyone should watch this film if you have questions as far as does God exist, from a scientific outlook pointing towards the fact that God does exisit:


The Case For The Creator:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3473983875617762630#docid=688111496234161611


Wanna Know if Jesus Might Have Been Real, watch this:


The Case For Christ
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3473983875617762630#

Most (if not all) of the content in these videos is creationist propaganda, specifically attacking the validity of abiogenesis and evolution with what can only be described as utter nonsense. Creationists do not produce evidence to support their claims (probably because there is none), what they do is use political lobbying to attempt to get their point across. It is not science in any way, it is political agenda fueled by religious delusion.

We can debate on and on about the existence of god (as evidenced by this thread) but most of what is presented in the videos is demonstrably wrong...it just isn't the way the real world is.
 
Most (if not all) of the content in these videos is creationist propaganda, specifically attacking the validity of abiogenesis and evolution with what can only be described as utter nonsense. Creationists do not produce evidence to support their claims (probably because there is none), what they do is use political lobbying to attempt to get their point across. It is not science in any way, it is political agenda fueled by religious delusion.

We can debate on and on about the existence of god (as evidenced by this thread) but most of what is presented in the videos is demonstrably wrong...it just isn't the way the real world is.

That's got to be o0ne of the more slanted pieces of prose I've seen in this forum.

The first film looked at the data we actually have and asked questions. The questions were raised not by anyone with an axe to grind, but by many serious scientists -- remember that statement signed by some six hundred scientists from universities across the world? There was no religious argument, no lobbying, just a reasonable presentation.

My guess is you didn't bother watching it at all, but just decided it was "creationism", and trotted out the usual responses.
 
Back
Top