Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 3694 (897054)
08-28-2022 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AZPaul3
08-28-2022 3:24 AM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
AZPaul3 writes:
Physics. All of it. We may not know where it all came from but we know what it all has, and has not, done since the first second of creation. There is nothing in the universe that indicates even a hint of the kinds of super intellect or devine universal Grand Poobah you posit. And since we know the physics so well, we can tell no god has interfered with this universe because there is no trail of causality/effect where there damn well should be if your fantasies were real and some god intervened.
So you're saying that lack of scientific evidence is evidence. Where is the scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Evolution explains how we physically evolved. What is the scientific evidence for the arrival of sentience in that process. I'm inclined to think that most likely physical evolution occurred without intervention but for the sake of argument how would we know if there was intervention that altered the process gradually over hundreds of years.
AZPaul3 writes:
I site the same laundry list to evidence a natural world sans your fine tuning. We know how many of these, especially the emotions, manifest in our heads, causing good boys to be bad and bad boys to be good by messing with their brains chemically and physically. We know how these things work and how they work by, what appears to be, only natural processes. No gods necessary or evident.
Fine, but then why do these processes exist at all? Outlining processes just tell us what happened, it doesn't tell us why it happened.
But the no-god cause is just conjecture as well.
AZPaul writes:
The fact that, in all the universe, there is no other viable option.
Says you. There is considerable opinion amongst scientists that contend that there is a theistic option.
AZPaul3 writes:
I don’t think you can ever provide the kinds and numbers of evidences of your fantasies that could challenge the reality as our sciences have revealed it. And remember, please, we are talking about a total zip on direct evidence you could point to that could only be done by a god but also the marks on the universe that should be there scratched in the heavens if the stories of your gods were real. In this universe even your god must obey Mother Nature.
Firstly I agree that science has done a great job of discovering how things happened. I agree,(other than that I contend that the anthropic principle points towards a cosmic intelligence, and I know you disagree), there is no direct scientific evidence for such an intelligence. Just as there is no direct scientific evidence for a 100% materialistic toot cause for all these processes.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2022 3:24 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2022 10:12 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 62 of 3694 (897055)
08-28-2022 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
08-28-2022 5:02 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
PaulK writes:
The Weak Anthropic Principle certainly is not. It’s an observation and one that is obviously true - the fact that we exist means that it must be possible for us to exist,
Sure science discovered it the principle but still can't explain the incredible mathematical odds of it being that way. Sure it's what makes it possible but how is that relevant?
PaulK writes:
This is also false. Proposing more of something known to exist would be more scientific than inventing a completely ad hoc creator. But it’s better than that - the multiverse is actually a consequence of some physical theories - which have yet to be confirmed - but even so it is a long way from being purely ad hoc,
But the multiverse isn't known to exist. This is just another case of science of the gaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2022 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2022 1:37 AM GDR has replied
 Message 66 by Stile, posted 08-29-2022 12:48 PM GDR has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 63 of 3694 (897056)
08-28-2022 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
08-28-2022 5:26 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
So you're saying that lack of scientific evidence is evidence.
Really?
The owner said his house burned down but when investigators got on scene they see no evidence of a house or of a fire. No disturbances in the ground where a slab should have been and no left over traces of soot, ash and other remnants of fire. The scientific evidence of no trace of house and no trace of fire when the experience of physics demands there be both seriously questions the efficacy of the initial report.
In particle physics when the hypothesis states the sproton particle (supersymmetric brother of the proton) should be found at 200 GeV and nothing is found at that energy then, yes, that fact of finding nothing is a data point in evidence.
A meddlesome god rampaging across earth and sky flooding everything, stopping the sun, instant fiat creation and dozens of other stories from (some version of) a bible would leave traces of its deeds. There should be hundreds of facts, data points of physics, evidencing the efficacy of these god stories. We find none.
“But our god is majik and faked over the evidence.” There is the appeal to hidden unknown, unknowable, majik. End of discussion. You lose.
So, yes, a lack of expected physical evidence where there should be is strong evidence itself. This cannot be that difficult to understand.
Outlining processes just tell us what happened, it doesn't tell us why it happened.
Layering cognition over some instincts does not make the instinct disappear. We are still animals and our success in evolution has been to adapt. Emotions are enhancements of instinct. Their use, growth, remission, expression, etc., appears to be chemically controlled and subject to the same variations of the genotype as eye color or dick size. Whatever conveys a reproductive advantage will be strengthened and spread through the population.
That is how emotions got here. They conveyed a growing survival advantage to a social species. Apply the same to the processes of sentience.
Fine, but then why do these processes exist at all? Outlining processes just tell us what happened, it doesn't tell us why it happened.
What part of “conveys a reproductive advantage” do you not understand? Not just the ability but the qualia of the ability. Any trait (emotional, intellectual, physical) that gives more reproductive babies is apt to be strengthened and extended in the following generations. That is why our emotions and intellect grew to the levels we experience. Reproductive advantage.
But the no-god cause is just conjecture as well.
It is the reality we see before us. There is nothing to indicate there is anything else.
Says you. There is considerable opinion amongst scientists that contend that there is a theistic option.
No there are not. Not any actual scientists. Maybe ex-scientists who, like Hoyle, have come to an end of their intellect and have gone off into your type of la-la land. If you look hard enough you can find a shill who will profess that Zyklon B is a good thing.
The preponderance of the facts and the preponderance of the scientists hold no such notions, GDR. You are reaching well beyond your grasp. You can get an idea how strong that preponderance can get by looking at Project Steve - Wikipedia
Just as there is no direct scientific evidence for a 100% materialistic toot cause for all these processes.
But, in fact there is. It is all around you. There is nothing in this universe that is NOT 100% materialistic. What you mean is that there is no evidence that this universe consists of anything other than 100% materialistic.

Edited by AZPaul3, .

Edited by AZPaul3, .


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 08-28-2022 5:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 64 of 3694 (897057)
08-29-2022 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by GDR
08-28-2022 5:35 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
quote:
Sure science discovered it the principle but still can't explain the incredible mathematical odds of it being that way. Sure it's what makes it possible but how is that relevant?
The odds are, in fact, completely unknown. We do not know what constraints are on the physical constants, nor which combinations might permit something we could call life. To talk of “astronomical odds” without very strong caveats is misleading at best.
quote:
But the multiverse isn't known to exist.
And? I said as much. Your creator isn’t known to exist either. We do know that the.multiverse could exist - and we don’t even know that for your creator. Indeed we can go further say that it is quite likely that the multiverse does exist.
quote:
This is just another case of science of the gaps.
That is an admission that you are using a “god of the gaps” argument. Moreover it is false. The claim is not that the multiverse DOES exist, the claim is that it is more scientific than your creator. That can be true even if the multiverse is only held as a scientific hypothesis that potentially explains “fine tuning”.
I would also point out that obvious double standards are hardly conducive to reasoned discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by GDR, posted 08-28-2022 5:35 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 1:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(5)
Message 65 of 3694 (897083)
08-29-2022 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
08-27-2022 1:59 PM


GDR writes:
In the “I Know that God does not exist” thread there are over 3000 posts...
Yeah! Awesome thread! Let's vote it for best-on-the-forum!! Who's with me!!???
For too many years the church has put the emphasis on personal salvation. All humanity, (and maybe even beyond humanity), are chosen. However, we aren’t chosen for salvation, but for vocation. We are all called to spread God’s love as embodied by Jesus into the world. As to what happens to us after our deaths is in God’s hands and with the resurrected Jesus we do have a small glimpse of what that might be.
I'm not exactly clear on the subject of this thread - so Imma gonna quote this here and take a stab at what you might be interested in discussing.
Personally, I sort of choose vocation - in a "what it's about" sorta way and not a "being a part of God" kinda way.
That is, I choose to spread Love (not God's love... as I don't think God exists.)
I'm not particularly concerned with what happens to me after I die
-there doesn't seem to be a way for me to control that... so I'd rather focus my efforts on something I can control... how I live
I'm also not concerned about Jesus... I don't care if he was resurrected or not, and I don't even care if he ever existed at all or not.
Once I choose to spread Love... I don't need anymore of those superfluous ideas.
And Love certainly does exist. I might not be able to show a math equation... but I can show many, many examples of people showing love for other people, or animals, or themselves or even sometimes inanimate objects.
I may not be able to provide an all-inclusive, strict definition of Love - but I find that to be a strength, not a weakness. It means I haven't learned all the possible ways that Love can show itself in this world, is all. And, maybe, there is no limiting Love by definition.
In following Love, I'm more concerned with treating people nicely, and providing care for my family, and helping others when I can.
-I don't care if an unevidenced God exists or not
-I don't care if the world was created for people or not
-I don't care if the world is fine-tuned or not
-I don't care if the universe was created for a purpose or not
-I don't care if "I Know That God Does Not Exist" has over 3000 posts or not (kidding! I absolutely am totally invested in this.)
It's all bullshit, and doesn't make a difference to what really matters: following Love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 08-27-2022 1:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 2:03 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 66 of 3694 (897084)
08-29-2022 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by GDR
08-28-2022 5:35 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
GDR writes:
Sure science discovered it the principle but still can't explain the incredible mathematical odds of it being that way.
I like both PaulK's and AZPaul3's ideas on this.
1. We don't know the odds... so we don't know if it's actually fine-tuned or not.
-we only have 1 universe
-our ability to describe/theoreticize others is incredibly limited as we can't seem to look outside of this one to get a nice objective view of it
-maybe this is the way universes have to be, and the odds of it occurring this way are: 100%
2. Forget #1... let's say it actually is incredibly fine-tuned. What makes you think it's fine-tuned for life or humans?
-it's likely fine-tuned for stars... the universe is really, really good at making stars. There's lots of 'em.
-it's most likely that life is an unrequired by-product... something that just happened to come along scraping and clawing whatever-it-could out of the finely-tuned-star-making-universe in order to exist.
-we have no right to feel slighted by this, we are existing within a star-making universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by GDR, posted 08-28-2022 5:35 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 67 of 3694 (897086)
08-29-2022 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
08-27-2022 1:59 PM


GDR writes:
My point is that it isn’t about choosing which deity that we choose to worship, but the nature of whatever deity we choose.
That sounds a lot like making up the God you want and never mind the reality.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 08-27-2022 1:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 1:41 PM ringo has replied
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 08-29-2022 3:23 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 3694 (897087)
08-29-2022 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
08-28-2022 2:37 AM


Re: Practcing The Art Of Discussion
Phat writes:
Tangle thinks it's all madness, but I think that he wishes that the Bronze Age Goat Herder belief system would "grow up" or something.
It has grown up, like the belief in Santa Claus has grown up and the need for a security blanket has grown up.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 08-28-2022 2:37 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by Phat, posted 11-08-2022 3:35 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 69 of 3694 (897091)
08-29-2022 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
08-29-2022 1:37 AM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
If it is ok I don't see a point in carrying on in this vein. Stile and Ringo have gone back to the point that I wanted to make when I started this thread.
I find the belief in a world with only materialistic roots to be unfathomable where as you and AZPaul3 hold the very opposite view and as Percy says we have covered this ground before.
Thanks for the discussion.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2022 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 08-29-2022 1:35 PM GDR has replied
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 08-29-2022 2:49 PM GDR has replied
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2022 2:51 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 70 of 3694 (897092)
08-29-2022 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
08-28-2022 1:50 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
Tangle writes:
you made a distinction between Christians and Catholics. All are Christians. "Not real Christians" I guess.
In Phat-world, only Evangelicals are "real Christians" - and not necessarily all evangelicals, either. It's like Faith-math, where there are "millions-and-millions" of Christians in the world, when it's convenient to have a majority - but on actual individual issues, the only "real Christians" are the other five people in the same pew with her.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 08-28-2022 1:50 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1321 by Phat, posted 11-08-2022 3:39 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 71 of 3694 (897099)
08-29-2022 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
08-29-2022 1:13 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
GDR writes:
I find the belief in a world with only materialistic roots to be unfathomable
I think this is a far more productive area of discussion than going over all the same stuff again.
My highly unoriginal thought is that it's the fact that people, when they look up at the stars and do the "what does it all mean, there must e more to it than this" thing that everybody does, then have to make up a meaning.
Religions of all shapes and sizes have filled that hole in our heads for millennia. For some of us though, science has started to fill in some of the hole - just a little bit - and reason has filled in a bit more. Enough at least to be clear that the thousands of world beliefs do not solve the meaning problem.
It seems that us humans need have to have meaning beyond their lifetimes. Because we're unique in being able to see beyond our lifetime and sense our own mortality we think there must be more beyond it. We think we're different and special.
I'm not one of them, I see no reason at all why we should not be just accumulations of atoms and that fact doesn't bother me at all.
Meaning can be found in what we do while we're alive.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 1:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 2:21 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 80 by Stile, posted 08-29-2022 2:48 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 72 of 3694 (897103)
08-29-2022 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
08-29-2022 12:57 PM


ringo writes:
That sounds a lot like making up the God you want and never mind the reality.
On many levels I agree with that. That was my point in bringing up the golden rule. It is common to all major religions to start with.
The Golden Rule is Common to All Religions - Norman Rockwell Museum - The Home for American Illustration
Also as we can see in Stile's post above you don't have to adhere to any particular religion to accept that as a world view.
From a Christian perspective I am largely in line with Rob Bell's book "Love Wins"
He starts off with this.
"Several years ago we had an art show at our church. I had been giving a series of teachings on peacemaking, and we invited artists to display their paintings, poems, and sculptures that reflected their understanding of what it means to be a peacemaker. One woman included in her work a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, which a number of people found quite compelling.
But not everyone.
Someone had attached a peice of paper to it. On the piece of paper was written: 'Reality check: He's in hell'.
Really?
Gandhi's in hell?
He is?
We have confirmation of this?
Somebody knows this?
Without a doubt?
And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?
Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number make it to a better place, and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? .....Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving god?"
Rob then goes on to totally debunk that notion of God and contends that "Love Wins".
Yes as a Christian I believe in a certain doctrine, but I also believe that truth can be found in a multitude of other faiths including atheism. As I sai earlier I often found myself in some cases of agreeing with Chris Hitchens over the Christians he was debating.
So yes, we ultimately do make up the god we believe in however, that does not mean we have to disregard reality.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 08-29-2022 12:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-29-2022 1:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 3694 (897104)
08-29-2022 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
08-29-2022 1:41 PM


GDR writes:
... however, that does not mean we have to disregard reality.
But all too often believers DO disregard reality. Phat, for example, says that believers don't "need" evidence.
Not "needing" evidence is just an excuse for denying evidence.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 1:41 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1322 by Phat, posted 11-08-2022 3:44 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 3694 (897107)
08-29-2022 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by GDR
08-28-2022 4:36 PM


Re: Welcome Back GDR
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
You might be heading down the same path that led you to abandon EvC in the first place. Will we soon see a claim that your evidence satisfies different criteria than those of science but that it is just as valid anyway? If so, this will expose you to the kind of treatment you object to.
The anthropic principle is a product of science and mathematical research. The fact that our universe is so finely tuned as a requirement for our existence is evidence. Science then proposes the multi-verse. That proposal is no more scientific than God did it.
Gee that sounds awfully familiar. Is there any possibility you've already made this argument in other threads and are ignoring that you already know what the responses are? Anyway, don't forget how obviously the banana was designed to fit our hand.
You're pretty much doing just what I expected, and likely exposing yourself to just the kind of treatment you seemed to want to avoid. You might try doing something different.
By the way, the reality of the anthropic principle is that the universe was created to give astronomers and cosmologists a satisfying object of study.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 08-28-2022 4:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 08-29-2022 2:05 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 75 of 3694 (897108)
08-29-2022 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Stile
08-29-2022 12:42 PM


What does God want of Us
Firstly I like to thank you for bring the thread back to my original point before I gotten off track and back on old territory.
Stile writes:
Personally, I sort of choose vocation - in a "what it's about" sorta way and not a "being a part of God" kinda way.
That is, I choose to spread Love (not God's love... as I don't think God exists.)
I'd say that you are in line with what God wants than are many people of all faiths. Yes, I believe that the love that you want to spread is from God, but what matters is that is you are responding to His still small voice. At many levels this is more Christ like than Christians who do loving thins to stay on the right side of God as they believe ultimately that they will benefit.
Stile writes:
I'm not particularly concerned with what happens to me after I die
-there doesn't seem to be a way for me to control that... so I'd rather focus my efforts on something I can control... how I live
Not to worry. If we live our lives based on self giving love the next world will take care of itself.
Stile writes:
I'm also not concerned about Jesus... I don't care if he was resurrected or not, and I don't even care if he ever existed at all or not.
That may disqualify you as a Christian but it doesn't mean that you aren't living a Christ like life.
Stile writes:
Once I choose to spread Love... I don't need anymore of those superfluous ideas.
And Love certainly does exist. I might not be able to show a math equation... but I can show many, many examples of people showing love for other people, or animals, or themselves or even sometimes inanimate objects.
I agree. As a Christian however, I do appreciate understanding the source of that love. (I know that is belief and not knowing.)
Stile writes:
I may not be able to provide an all-inclusive, strict definition of Love - but I find that to be a strength, not a weakness. It means I haven't learned all the possible ways that Love can show itself in this world, is all. And, maybe, there is no limiting Love by definition.
Preach it brother. Can I gat an amen?
Stile writes:
In following Love, I'm more concerned with treating people nicely, and providing care for my family, and helping others when I can.
-I don't care if an unevidenced God exists or not
-I don't care if the world was created for people or not
-I don't care if the world is fine-tuned or not
-I don't care if the universe was created for a purpose or not
-I don't care if "I Know That God Does Not Exist" has over 3000 posts or not (kidding! I absolutely am totally invested in this.)

It's all bullshit, and doesn't make a difference to what really matters: following Love.
Jesus is applauding whether you know it or not.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Stile, posted 08-29-2022 12:42 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 08-29-2022 3:35 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024