Do you believe there is a God?

TheHamburglar

milk_manWhere did you go to school?

TheHamburglarDaddy got me into Harvard! Actually no, Yale, wait-

U of Redlands in California, double major in music and psych. Then sound engineering school in LA for industry certification, finished top of my class. Working to afford my MBA within the next several years.

And you?

milk_manNice! Going for business finance at the state college in Moorhead.. Minnesota state university Moorhead (MN)

TheHamburglarOn the real, that's awesome man, good luck!

milk_manhttps://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/posts/1629049327115091

This may cause many people to believe in God

LonelyAn interesting video, but the current information that they have still does not warrant any belief. There are varying statements and opinions of both doctors and scientist on how long the brain stays active after death. I'm not particular convinced by the doctor in this video, especially after he said the brain shuts down 2 seconds after cardiac arrest. It's possible but quite unlikely.

ginNo, because if God created the universe then who created god??


/end thread

milk_manI'm not sure that's what they were saying. It was really confusingly worded

"One man was able to recall details that occurred for up to five minutes after he was declared clinically dead. The brain shuts down within two to 20 seconds in those cases and would not have been functioning, he noted."

2-20 seconds after cardiac arrest starts would be off, but would 2-20 seconds after cardiac arrest stops be inaccurate?

LonelySo here's the thing. Clinically dead is, for the most part, is when the blood or the heart stop circulating normally. Now, someone could be receiving chest compressions or ecmo for an hour and still be clinically dead, or in cardiac arrest where their heart is not beating on its own. I know of cases where patients have received ecmo or chest compressions and were "dead" for upwards of twenty minutes.

Even after the cardiac arrest stops your brain is still active. It varies in amount from case to case.

milk_manClinically dead is when the brain shuts down, isn't it? These people were supposed to have known what was going on after their brain was not functioning. That's why this is starting to be more and more accepted in the scientific community, like they said

LonelyYou're confusing brain death and being clinically dead. If you're clinically dead your heart has stop and you are not breathing. So if a clinician were to look at your pulse and respiration, and you had none, you would be dead in a "clinical" sense. Brain dead is when the brain ceases to function, or is beyond the point where functionality can be rescued. Hence why you can be brain dead and still be clinically normal.

milk_manIn the video it stated that they timed consciousness up to 5 minutes after the brain had shut down. I knew I remembered that from the video.. but I rewatched it to be sure.

Scotty_BYea just read this

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

GryllzI don't believe in god... but I wouldn't go as far as to say there isn't a spiritual world.

milk_manIf a spiritual world exists then what stops the existence of God? Since the existence of God and souls is a spiritual world

dirtydarbsand now i kinda feel like i was brainwashed in my youth

milk_manThat's what most colleges want you to think

Charlie_KellyWhy?

Would you believe in God if your parents and community had no influence on you?

milk_manYour family influences you. Why is that negative? It's better for your family who know you and love you to influence you than people who don't care about you. Plus, when you get older you decide for yourself if you want to believe what they influenced you to believe. You will be influenced one way or the other no matter what

milk_manYour family influences you. Why is that negative?

milk_manYour family influences you. Why is that negative? It's better for your family who know you and love you to influence you than people who don't care about you. Plus, when you get older you decide for yourself if you want to believe what they influenced you to believe. You will be influenced one way or the other no matter what

onenerdykidIt's not that your parents should not influence you, it's just interesting to note that the vast, vast majority of believers believe in the God of their parents. Meaning that the God you grew up with is the right one, and all other Gods/religions are wrong (or at the very least mistaken about the truth). You believe in the Christian God because that's how you were raised. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would believe that Allah was the one true God. Or if you were born during the time of the Aztecs, you would believe in Huitzilopochtli, etc. etc. and so on and so on. Of all the possible Gods/religions, the one you were raised with is the right one. How very lucky of you :)

If I'm wrong about the above, why is it that you don't believe Islam to be true path to God? After all, Islam claims to be the third and final revelation- there is no religious truth after this or aside from this. The Qur'an was directly dictated to Muhammad- not written down 30 years after the prophet's death, nor rife with inaccurate/questionable passages that got misinterpreted or edited or revised by group of Englishmen. It is the most direct religious text we have, in terms of how many hands got to it from God to holy text. And once you have heard that Islam is the third and final revelation, if you deny it and instead choose a false God, you will go to Hell for all of eternity. But I bet you don't lose any sleep over this. I bet you don't worry about suffering in Hell for all of eternity for believing Jesus is the son of God. Why not?

onenerdykidIt's not that your parents should not influence you, it's just interesting to note that the vast, vast majority of believers believe in the God of their parents. Meaning that the God you grew up with is the right one, and all other Gods/religions are wrong (or at the very least mistaken about the truth). You believe in the Christian God because that's how you were raised. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would believe that Allah was the one true God. Or if you were born during the time of the Aztecs, you would believe in Huitzilopochtli, etc. etc. and so on and so on. Of all the possible Gods/religions, the one you were raised with is the right one. How very lucky of you :)

If I'm wrong about the above, why is it that you don't believe Islam to be true path to God? After all, Islam claims to be the third and final revelation- there is no religious truth after this or aside from this. The Qur'an was directly dictated to Muhammad- not written down 30 years after the prophet's death, nor rife with inaccurate/questionable passages that got misinterpreted or edited or revised by group of Englishmen. It is the most direct religious text we have, in terms of how many hands got to it from God to holy text. And once you have heard that Islam is the third and final revelation, if you deny it and instead choose a false God, you will go to Hell for all of eternity. But I bet you don't lose any sleep over this. I bet you don't worry about suffering in Hell for all of eternity for believing Jesus is the son of God. Why not?

milk_manAnd if you live like Jesus you can't murder people

milk_manBecause the religion makes no sense. It appeals to people's human pleasures to get them to be a slave and somehow maybe earn their way into heaven. They objectify women--while In Christianity women were the first ones to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty. Absolutely unprecedented at the time. Not very many people would have believed a woman's account. So, I'll take and believe the religion that holds true all the way through. The one that accepts all sinners and doesn't put them to death (don't mention the Old Testament, everyone knows that isn't the law of Christianity).

Also, "Muhammad" is probably the reason there is radical Islam. In Christianity, our example on how to live a really good life is Jesus. And if you live like Jesus you can't murder people. Muhammad literally killed someone. And that's who they look up to. Religion of peace? I don't believe it.

onenerdykidBut the Qur'an is literally the word of God. If you don't like it too bad- it's the truth. By what authority do you deny it? Christ's word? He's just a man, and the New Testament is merely a collection of heresay... (I hope you see what I'm trying to do here).

But if you think Christianity "holds true all the way through" you need to read more of the Bible. First, Jesus time and time again mentions that what was said in the Old Testament is true:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)
What "law" do you think he is referring to, since obviously the "new" testament has not been written yet- he is clearly referring to the Old Testament and that it is still valid.

While I do grant that Jesus is a peace-loving hippie in comparison to Muhammad, he did say "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." - Luke 19:27 and also in Matthew 10:34 - "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." At best, Jesus is a contradictory mess of "thou shall not kill" and "kill them". Hardly consistent all the way through.

As for women in Christianity... you have to be kidding me. They are completely subservient to men and absolutely not of equal moral worth to a man.
1 Timothy 2:12 - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
Colossians 3:18 - "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."
Corinthians 14:34-35 - "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
Ephesians 5:23 - "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."

How is any of this a good thing? I mean, let's not forget that Jesus fully endorsed and justified human slavery. In terms of being a moral beacon, Christianity is only a little less horrible than Islam. Especially if we include the Old Testament, which Jesus thinks we should.

milk_manBoy, talk about drugged up basement philosophy. If skimming was painful I can't imagine what taking it seriously would be like..

Rparryou guys want to meet god? Just smoke a good .1g of DMT and you'll be right in front of him

Gucci_afIt's like the talk about afterlife, heaven and hell and such... But why would u really worry about where u gonna end up after you die, I'm not saying there's no such place however shouldn't people worry about their life right now? to live it to the fullest, worry about the after life after you die tbh

milk_manWe've gone over this.. no he did not come to abolish the law. The law that Moses brought forth was the Ten Commandments. That's why Christians still follow them. (Aside from the fact that they are an EXCELLENT moral guideline to live by).

Jesus IS God AND man, so Jesus' word IS the word of God :) (I did it there too)

As for women.. only one of those is from the New Testament, right? Wives submitting to their husbands is pretty mild compared to having their face covered and even worse things. But I would encourage you to read that verse in context instead of ripping it out to prove a point.

onenerdykidYou very much like to cherry pick what parts of the Old Testament you like and what you don't like. Ten Commandments are good, but (the rest of) Deuteronomy is bad. Homosexuality is a sin in Leviticus but Jesus never mentions it as a sin in the New Testament. On what authority do you get to decide what parts of the Bible you follow and what ones you ignore?

While the Ten Commandments do offer some good advice, overall it is quite weak at being a moral code we ought to live by. For being directly handed to us from an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, all-perfect creator, they are incredibly odd and incomplete. In fact, the first 4 indicate that God is super insecure and easily made jealous, which is definitely weird since he is a supremely perfect being and not a petty teenager. In less than 5 minutes, we could easily improve upon them and make a far better "top 10" list of what to do/not do. Simply adding "don't own another human being as property" would be a good start.

Jesus is not God. This is incredibly basic stuff, found time and time again in scripture and in theology, namely from the greatest Christian theologian of all time, St. Thomas Aquinas. Christ was a man, the son of God, not God himself. Jesus' role is the mediator between man and God- the way we understand God is through Jesus. I'll spare you the scripture for now, but it's easily found.

But back to my original point- you don't believe that Islam is the true path to God because you were not indoctrinated into it. You were indoctrinated into Christianity. So after years and years of believing that Christianity is the way, when you finally come across a religion like Islam, of course you won't believe it. Islam is absurd to you as Christianity is to them because you were both indoctrinated into mutually exclusive faith-based belief structures.

milk_man"4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”" Matthew 19:4-6. New Testament. No it doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. Why would it specifically say that? Think of the time it was written. Homosexuality was rare and absurd. Everyone already knew that.

It's not cherry picking, it's called following the law that was made for all time, not a specific law for a specific culture in the Old Testament.

By definition, I was not indoctrinated. So I don't feel the need to address that point. Sounds more like an attack on anyone of faith rather than a rational argument. I could also say that non believers are indoctrinated into unbelief by school systems, their parents, friends, etc. and would I be wrong? Definitely not.

milk_man"4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”" Matthew 19:4-6. New Testament. No it doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. Why would it specifically say that? Think of the time it was written. Homosexuality was rare and absurd. Everyone already knew that.

It's not cherry picking, it's called following the law that was made for all time, not a specific law for a specific culture in the Old Testament.

By definition, I was not indoctrinated. So I don't feel the need to address that point. Sounds more like an attack on anyone of faith rather than a rational argument. I could also say that non believers are indoctrinated into unbelief by school systems, their parents, friends, etc. and would I be wrong? Definitely not.

onenerdykidYour history of homosexuality is atrocious. Cultures that pre-date the Bible by hundreds and thousands of years specifically reference and discuss homosexuality at length. It was not rare, it was not considered absurd. It only seems to you to be rare since once Christianity took power, anyone considered a homosexual would be killed for it. So naturally homosexuals kept quiet about it for reasons of self preservation. But now that Christianity is not the main judicial power in the Western world, homosexuals can openly exist without fear of being killed by their government. You see homosexuality as something "new" when in reality it has always existed.

I bring up the "sin" of homosexuality because only in the Old Testament is it directly referred to as something to avoid. But in the same book of Leviticus, one must also avoid shell fish and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics. But these other avoidances only applied to a particular people in the Old Testament? So, if I hear you correctly, chapter 11 (avoiding shell fish) is for some people but not all, but chapter 18 (homosexuality is a sin) is for all people, then chapter 19 (avoiding mixed fabrics) is for some people but not all, etc. etc. The mental gymnastics required to figure out that being gay is still a sin but eating shell fish is now ok simply amounts to modern people searching for excuses to be able to go to Red Lobster and hate on gay people.

I say indoctrinated because you have a faith without any real grounding that it is factually (or logically) true. You have faith seeking understanding. You accept religious claims as true without any sufficient evidence for their truth- you only have insufficient evidence, the Bible. To teach a claim as true simply because it is written in a book by men who didn't know where the sun went at night is exactly the definition of indoctrination. The same does not hold for those who have beliefs founded on sufficient evidence. They have evidence first, then form their beliefs around the evidence. It is the exact opposite of indoctrination, so yes you would be wrong in assuming that such people have been indoctrinated.

milk_manA lack of evidence for something is not evidence of the opposite. You have no evidence that there isn't a God, so someone who specifically believes that there's isn't a God is indoctrinated. You don't have sufficient evidence.

So no, a disbelief in God is not founded on sufficient evidence.

Profahoben_212I don't really want to jump in on this, but homosexuality wasn't actually looked down or prosecuted on until around the 1100bc area, at the same time they started prosecuting jews.

I MO God loves everybody, and who are we to judge. Stupid people are stupid people. Let he without sin throw the first stone. In that quote alone, we shouldn't look down on people for what they do, what they believe or who they are.

Nobody follows that though

onenerdykidI have never once claimed that God doesn't exist. There just isn't any sufficient evidence to think he does or should exist. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. If you make the claim that God exists, you need to be the one providing the proof.

Ultimately, the concept of "God" is a non-contradictory one and therefore logically possible. This means that we can have meaningful discussions about God and actually I am all for it. I would very much be open to a Deist conception of God, it does make sense to me. But, there simply isn't sufficient evidence that I should believe in such a conception of God. It just makes sense conceptually, but so do unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, and zombies.

God and religion are and can be two different things. As soon as people start making truth claims and value claims about God and claim that they possess knowledge of what God wants, I demand they give sufficient evidence for their claims. This is especially true when such people want to pass laws based on their religious claims and directly affect the lives of millions of people.

milk_manYes, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. So if someone says God exists, the null hypothesis is that God doesn't exist. And when someone claims God doesn't exist, the null hypothesis is that God does exist. It's a two way street that doesn't get anywhere--quickly. So basically, it's irrelevant who the burden of proof lies on because the null hypothesis changes depending what you're trying to prove.

But science is close to possibly proving that humans have souls. And if they do that, it should make people more open to believing that God exists!

onenerdykidWhat you're talking about is not a null hypothesis, try again. What you're referring to doesn't even make sense because no one is even making the claim that God does not exist. It is absolutely wrong to assume that when claim X is made, that claim not-X is also made. If this were true, then an infinite number of absurdities would be posited for every true claim, which is nonsense. It absolutely does matter who the burden of proof lies on. You make a claim, you need to back it up. Welcome to science. If you don't think this is true, try getting anything done in any field of science.

According to Christianity, the soul, in order to be eternal and unchanging, is completely immaterial and non-physical, lacking any extension or measurable traits. So by definition it is entirely weightless, tasteless, colorless, immeasurable, etc. Good luck empirically proving the non-physical. If they do find something, it will be a physical something and thus not as the Christians define it. Soul would a physical phenomenon, bound by temporal constraints, thus not eternal and not unchanging. It would be something out of Aristotle, not Christianity.

onenerdykidWhat you're talking about is not a null hypothesis, try again. What you're referring to doesn't even make sense because no one is even making the claim that God does not exist. It is absolutely wrong to assume that when claim X is made, that claim not-X is also made. If this were true, then an infinite number of absurdities would be posited for every true claim, which is nonsense. It absolutely does matter who the burden of proof lies on. You make a claim, you need to back it up. Welcome to science. If you don't think this is true, try getting anything done in any field of science.

According to Christianity, the soul, in order to be eternal and unchanging, is completely immaterial and non-physical, lacking any extension or measurable traits. So by definition it is entirely weightless, tasteless, colorless, immeasurable, etc. Good luck empirically proving the non-physical. If they do find something, it will be a physical something and thus not as the Christians define it. Soul would a physical phenomenon, bound by temporal constraints, thus not eternal and not unchanging. It would be something out of Aristotle, not Christianity.

Profahoben_212Statistics....every hypothesis has a null and alternative....it is the first step of hypothesis testing