Should Christianity be our state religion?

[SonOfAssyria]

I know bible teaches good but l am non religious and agonstic and l dont see bible as scientific evidence, of course science has theories about many things but they are trying to find the truth about the world, science tell us we are assyrians through excavations and evidence. While l am not telling u to believe in science but l myself believe in it because it got atleast evidence, which the bible lack.

Who said the bible lacks evidence?

 

[Nemrud]

Who said the bible lacks evidence?

It does have some evidence but the supernatural cant be real.

 

[SonOfAssyria]

That's exactly the main problem within our ethnicity. Dogmatism.

I agree.

It does have some evidence but the supernatural cant be real.

That is your subjective opinion. It is a miracle in itself that this universe came to be. There is simply no other logical conclusion regarding how and why the universe came to being other than it being created by a supernatural force, with supernatural being defined as something beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature , in other words, by God.

 

[Nemrud]

I agree.

That is your subjective opinion. It is a miracle in itself that this universe came to be. There is simply no other logical conclusion regarding how and why the universe came to being other than it being created by a supernatural force, with supernatural being defined as something beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature , in other words, by God.

Who said i didnt believe in god? I believe There might be something somewhere but then again am not sure because If god created the Universe then who created god? Did he create himself

 

[Nemrud]

I dont really mind christianity, i just want science to be teached in university and schools, or l might not support the country hehe

 

[SonOfAssyria]

Who said i didnt believe in god? I believe There might be something somewhere but then again am not sure because If god created the Universe then who created god? Did he create himself

I've heard this same argument so many times. To asks "Who created God" assumes that God is of the same nature of his creation, assuming a limited God, which is false. Only things that have a beginning, or things which at one point did not exist, require a creator. According to the Biblical definition of God, God is ever present, he has always existed, meaning he logically lacks the requirement for a creator as he has no beginning. He did not create himself, he always existed.

The only way God cannot exist is if the universe always existed. However, since we now know that the universe had a beginning (thanks to science), we can logically assume that there must of been a certain force which caused the universe to come into existence, further proving the existence of God.

 

[Nemrud]

I've heard this same argument so many times. To asks "Who created God" assumes that God is of the same nature of his creation, assuming a limited God, which is false. Only things that have a beginning, or things which at one point did not exist, require a creator. According to the Biblical definition of God, God is ever present, he has always existed, meaning he logically lacks the requirement for a creator as he has no beginning. He did not create himself, he always existed.

The only way God cannot exist is if the universe always existed. However, since we now know that the universe had a beginning (thanks to science), we can logically assume that there must of been a certain force which caused the universe to come into existence, further proving the existence of God.

Yes, but  l never read that the universe never did exist, some says it was Always There.

 

[SonOfAssyria]

Yes, but  l never read that the universe never did exist, some says it was Always There.

All evidence points to the universe having a beginning.
Even Stephen Hawking agrees the universe had a beginning and was not always in existence:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[Nemrud]

All evidence points to the universe having a beginning.
Even Stephen Hawking agrees the universe had a beginning and was not always in existence:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I have read it and now believes, before l didnt believe in god but now l believe but still not sure, We can Only know for sure when we die.  I am still an agnostic though because the bible didnt teach evolution which is proven to be fact, and also There are thousands of religions in the world, some is created today and get followers, and everybody believes strongly in his religion and says it is the right religion, and all others is fake, what evidence do u have that proves christianity is the true one?

 

[Cascade]

I've heard this same argument so many times. To asks "Who created God" assumes that God is of the same nature of his creation, assuming a limited God, which is false. Only things that have a beginning, or things which at one point did not exist, require a creator. According to the Biblical definition of God, God is ever present, he has always existed, meaning he logically lacks the requirement for a creator as he has no beginning. He did not create himself, he always existed.

The only way God cannot exist is if the universe always existed. However, since we now know that the universe had a beginning (thanks to science), we can logically assume that there must of been a certain force which caused the universe to come into existence, further proving the existence of God.

Just because the bible says something doesn't mean it's not illogical to nature. Everything must have a beginning. The bible can say anything about god being existing forever and whatnot, doesn't make it true. Creationists tell us of a watch and painting found in a remote desert, and that they all must have a creator, right? Well, this logic applies to god himself. Doesn't he have a creator as well? And why is only the biblical god true? What about the Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Hindu, etc, gods? You see, our god is not that special.

 

[SonOfAssyria]

Just because the bible says something doesn't mean it's not illogical to nature. Everything must have a beginning. The bible can say anything about god being existing forever and whatnot, doesn't make it true. Creationists tell us of a watch and painting found in a remote desert, and that they all must have a creator, right? Well, this logic applies to god himself. Doesn't he have a creator as well? And why is only the biblical god true? What about the Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Hindu, etc, gods? You see, our god is not that special.

It seems like you yourself agree that everything must have a beginning. I agree with this too, to an extent. In order for anything to exist, there must be something which has always existed. Think about it, if we were to say that God himself had a creator, we would then have to ask who created God's creator, and then ask who created God's creator's creator and this will keep going in a sort of paradoxical endless loop. It is inevitable that it eventually must get to the point where there is a certain being who always existed and is the reason for all creation to come into existence, because without this particular being there is absolutely no way for anything to exist. Therefore, it is logical to assume that God must be, by definition, always in existence. For creation to come in existence there must be a certain being who has always existed even before creation or else we will be stuck in a paradoxical endless loop where nothing can exist. The only way around this would be to say that the universe itself was always in existence, thus removing the requirement of God for it's existence, but as I mentioned earlier, we know that the universe has a beginning. The only way the universe can exist is God.

 

[Cascade]

It seems like you yourself agree that everything must have a beginning. I agree with this too, to an extent. In order for anything to exist, there must be something which has always existed. Think about it, if we were to say that God himself had a creator, we would then have to ask who created God's creator, and then ask who created God's creator's creator and this will keep going in a sort of paradoxical endless loop.

And that's why this paradox just makes the existence of a god really improbable. You're right, the loop will go on and on to the point of absurdity. Therefore, the existence of a god would be really unlikely. Everything must have a beginning, right? Yes, and god shouldn't be out of question.

It is inevitable that it eventually must get to the point where there is a certain being who always existed and is the reason for all creation to come into existence, because without this particular being there is absolutely no way for anything to exist. Therefore, it is logical to assume that God must be, by definition, always in existence. For creation to come in existence there must be a certain being who has always existed even before creation or else we will be stuck in a paradoxical endless loop where nothing can exist. The only way around this would be to say that the universe itself was always in existence, thus removing the requirement of God for it's existence, but as I mentioned earlier, we know that the universe has a beginning. The only way the universe can exist is God.

Just because we don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe doesn't mean God did it or was there. You're abiding to the "god of the gaps" theology here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). That's why I'm an agnostic on this matter. We just don't know. If a deity is proven to be the creator, then I will be happy either way. Mind you, if you were saying that God surely doesn't exist I will still give you the same sentiments - You don't know and you cannot assume this.

 

[Nemrud]

And that's why this paradox just makes the existence of a god really improbable. You're right, the loop will go on and on to the point of absurdity. Therefore, the existence of a god would be really unlikely. Everything must have a beginning, right? Yes, and god shouldn't be out of question.
Just because we don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe doesn't mean God did it or was there. You're abiding to the "god of the gaps" theology here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). That's why I'm an agnostic on this matter. We just don't know. If a deity is proven to be the creator, then I will be happy either way. Mind you, if you were saying that God surely doesn't exist I will still give you the same sentiments - You don't know and you cannot assume this.

Welcome to the agnostic club

 

[mrzurnaci]

And that's why this paradox just makes the existence of a god really improbable. You're right, the loop will go on and on to the point of absurdity. Therefore, the existence of a god would be really unlikely. Everything must have a beginning, right? Yes, and god shouldn't be out of question.
Just because we don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe doesn't mean God did it or was there. You're abiding to the "god of the gaps" theology here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). That's why I'm an agnostic on this matter. We just don't know. If a deity is proven to be the creator, then I will be happy either way. Mind you, if you were saying that God surely doesn't exist I will still give you the same sentiments - You don't know and you cannot assume this.

However, you still can't remove religion. It's proven that controlling our animal urges has led to civilization and improving. Secondly, religion works better than a cultural philosophy because the cultural can be lost at any point in the civilization; proof of this is in Rome when the Roman virtues, that helped Rome become great, were lost over generations.

Religion is pretty good at keeping Extroverted sheeple civil and advancing society further with the exception of Islam.

 

[Cascade]

However, you still can't remove religion. It's proven that controlling our animal urges has led to civilization and improving. Secondly, religion works better than a cultural philosophy because the cultural can be lost at any point in the civilization; proof of this is in Rome when the Roman virtues, that helped Rome become great, were lost over generations.

Religion is pretty good at keeping Extroverted sheeple civil and advancing society further with the exception of Islam.

I know. I don't think that all religions are equally bad, or that all religions are bad either way (some are quite good, like Taoism, Shintoism, some forms of Christianity and Buddhism). So I can see your point. However, I just don't think we need religion today per se. Sure, it helped us in the past, but today? I don't know. Sort of like milk drinking. Vital when we were babies. But not so much as adults and we don't need to rely on milk to live. I would exclude Assyrians here though because our church does unite us and help us learn our language. But in Europe and among western cultures, there's really no use for religion.