Replies

Agnosticism requires an acknowledgement of a KNOWING lord. I don't believe that.

I don't intend to offend you Willy, to tell the truth, I envy you. Truth is I lack faith in a LOT more than just the divine. :)

However? I envy your faith (not cuz I'm superior, but because in fact I KNOW I'm a lesser man, who sometimes has bigger arguments, but an argument only gets you into a fight :) I'm an Atheist, because the "god" I hope for, is not a loving one, but an indifferent one, I PRAY, not for an eternal joy, and satisfaction in the presence of absolute goodness, but rather, I pray for the indifferent god of absolute and eternal blackness. Close my mind, and let me rest.

And I have read, I've Sought out meaning throughout most of my life, and the bible did not suite me, and I like to think I am a good person, I have done good things, FAR more than bad, and I have always regretted and appologized, not to god, but to the person I wronged. If there is a Christian god? he should still accept me, because I accept the teachings of Jesus, though I do not name him god or prophet.

If God is so fickle that he can't accpet that? then F him.

Sounds like you have a lot of problems.

If there is a Christian god? he should still accept me, because I accept the teachings of Jesus, though I do not name him god or prophet.

If God is so fickle that he can't accept that? then F him.

You do not understand Christianity. The gift of God through Christ is Grace. Not by anything that you do. It is an acceptance of a Power greater than yourself and the acknowledgment of such, and that 'such' is God through Jesus Christ our Savior "nobody comes to the Father unless they come through me" said Christ. It is indeed declaring God's story as true and faithful and the only road to salvation.

Your perspective is all wrong. You cannot name Jesus the son of God or a prophet and that is the point that I was trying to make. As far as God being accepting and/or fickle, this is another issue of perspective. God is was and will always be. We as humans tend to give him human traights and characteristics (as I just did) in an attempt to make God more familiar to us. Even assigning a gender to God is an example of this. In my opinion it is blasphemous to assign human traights to the creator because it diminishes the perfection that is our God. I think religions are mans' attempts to interpret and pass on his perfect word as well as a way to control the masses in the absence of government or rule through strength. I think you might find out that you have the capacity to believe in a higher being albeit maybe not in the traditional form. I would suggest that the relationship is important regardless of what form it takes.

It is such a shame that many men have perverted religion to the point where you went from seeker of the truth to someone who came away from the search not believing.

I believe (and have faith) that it is entirely possible that your search may not be over. If there is a God [and I believe that there is but I write "if" for your benefit so as to not be off putting], He will be the only One who sits in judgment of you...it will not be members of an Internet message board who are offended by what you write on the subject.

If your [never ending] search ever leads you back to the bible, may I suggest that you just stay with the four canonized gospels. But also read the gnostic gospels that are not found in the bible. Either nine of Christ's followers were full of crap and handed down bogus accounts of what Jesus had done or they passed along the truth. Many of those nine passed along these accounts at tremendous risk and peril to themselves...most people will not do these kinds of things; think about that for a while and it may spark and interest in reading Mark again.

You obviously haven't studied the Bible very thoroughly if you have arrived at your "conclusions" as you say by studying the Bible. Remember where the Bible says "There are none good"? Believe what you wish but know why you believe it.

I pray for the indifferent god of absolute and eternal blackness.

I hope this helps.

Aristotelian Logic: noun: Aristotle's deductive method of logic, especially the theory of the syllogism.

Atheist: noun: someone who denies the existence of god

Agnostic: noun: one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Deist: noun: a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it.

Theist: noun: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Proof: noun: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Descartes’ proposition: Cogito sum Ergo --- “I think, therefore, I am” [exist]

Aristotelian logic standard: “Nothing” can come from “nothing,” i.e., an occurrence, event, object, etc., can be traced backward through a casual chain to a “first cause.”

By Descartes’ proposition anyone who thinks, exists. For an individual to exist, by Aristotelian logic, he or she had a cause, i.e., parents. However, parents had a cause, i.e., grandparents who had a cause, etc. At some point (even with evolution) life had a cause and so forth to the cause of the universe in which life came to exist. Hence, the question what or who was the “first cause?” … There is no possible, logical answer but a creative entity that exists outside the constraints of the universe, i.e., beyond the constraints of time, space, etc.: God.

An atheist must deny Aristotelian logic. Consequently, atheism can provide no rational explanation for existence, i.e., a “first cause.” Therefore, atheism is an illogical proposition.

Agnosticism similarly denies that Aristotelian logic is a valid reasoning tool in the sense that it denies that one can conclude positively that there was a “first cause.” Therefore, agnosticism is an illogical proposition.

Consequently, only Deism and Theism can be considered rational, or logical, positions. Therefore, the “God” argument logically reduces to, not whether God exists, but, what is the nature of God. All of the differences among all of religions on earth essentially reduce to differences about what is the nature of God and/or what are God’s expectations for the behavior of mankind.

Aristotelian logic combined with careful scientific observation and knowledge allows someone to infer things about a creator from an artifact. For example, a forensic scientist can examine a signature and with enough knowledge, deduce whether the author was left handed or right handed, etc., or test for the existence for power residue on someone’s hand and infer whether the person may have fired a gun recently, or the marks on a bullet and infer what type of gun fired (or created) the shot. The same methodology can be applied to the universe and its creator. For example, if Planck’s constant, the universal gravitational constant, etc., were different by even small amounts, the universe could become inhospitable to life, in general, and mankind, in particular. From this line of reasoning one logical position is to conclude that the Creator of the universe intended for life, in general, and mankind, in particular, to exist. This rationale is known as the anthropic principle.

Combine the anthropic principle with some general observations of human kind in contrast to the rest of creation as we know it. Mankind has the power of complex speech, the ability to control atomic reactions, to visit other celestial bodies, to reason out the complexities of biology, to pass accumulated knowledge to future generations, etc. Prominent among these formidable, human capacities is the ability to rationally question the nature of the “first cause.” The mere existence of this human ability combined with the anthropic principle suggests that mankind was intended by the Creator to seek the nature of God. The proof is left to the reader.

Pascal’s proposition (paraphrased): If I believe in God and there is no God, I have lost nothing, but I do not believe in God and there is a God, I have lost everything.