Don't they have IV's?
Lol!
.... no, not the forum, just the computer for a few minutes, i'm hungry!
bye!.
Don't they have IV's?
Lol!
hello friends -.
i would like to share a news article from cnn i thought was interesting.
i'm 'spritual but not religious' person who still believes in god almighty and jesus as his son.
Is there really such a thing as spirituality? Does spirituality require belief in a god? What is spirituality? The only definition that I find makes sense is this one Whatever makes you feel peaceful, joyful and content is spirituality.
this is lifted from a downloadable 'childrens note book for the 2010 d/cs' :.
http://www.jwforum.net/portal/ i found it in the twitter section.
when do you want to be baptized?.
Get them when they are young..
for those who haven't seen the video yet on youtube of ciro's ( a bethel speaker?
) sick talk given in, i believe, 2007, i provide the link:.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwa9kx5wjtm.
I like how he chuckles when he talks about the amount of dead bodies, what a sicko... and to think I believed this insanity.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
It is the Abrahamic God that is being forced on people in this day & age & in these parts of the world, if it were the above mentioned Gods who were being forced on people then it would be those Gods that i would be addressing.
That's what I meant when I said it's political not religious.
my buddy and i were recalling some of the worst talks we ever heard.. one classic we remembered was one by a new c.o., who gave this talk on his first visit.. the guy was an arrogant tool, and he thought he was the voice of god.. we couldnt remember the title, but all we remember was a 30 minute rant against the phrase "take it easy".
we thought it was supposed to be talk encouraging pioneering, but it quickly took a turn for the worse....... "we often hear worldly people use the phrase "take it easy" - as christians, we do not take it easy!".
"we should never hear the phrase "take it easy" here at the kingdom hall".
I remember a talk once that the guy said "if some one asks you how are you doing a Christian should not reply really good because then you know you are not doing something right" what an a hole.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
Sorry I know you did not invent the arguments they are the ones who are the most used what I should of said is the arguments you listed. But I think you miss my point or that I did not explain it clearly enough. I'll try again. Most arguments are based on the Judeo -Christian god and I find that this alone is a good argument against his existence. Why would it be this god over all the other possibilities and beliefs? Why not argue on Hindu gods or Shinto gods, native american etc.. It is more political then religious.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
Your list of failed arguments are based on a preconception of god, the loving all-knowing and creator god. You create a god and then use arguments to show that this god probably does not exist. What about a incompetent god or an evil god or an immoral god...., you get the point. I personally have came to the conclusion that if a god (or gods) exist it is pointless to debate about it. Even if a god came down and said "hey I'm your god" how would we know this to be true? A powerful being can look like a god to us but how can we be sure. The only way to know is to have the same knowledge as the being who presents itself as god.
i don't know if this subject has been discussed here before.
if it has, could someone help me find it?
if it hasn't (i can't imagine that it hasn't), here's what i was wondering.