Does God exist?

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 26
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
If God doesn’t exist, how does the pope exist?  I’m agnostic, but thought I would put that out there.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,851
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
--> @Alec
The pope could exist without God. If he evolved from a monkey to a man. Some think though, that he is still a monkey.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 797
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Alec
Why would a man elected by other men to be the 'conduit to God' be evidence of a god?
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,851
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
--> @Alec
To be serious now.

Having a pope, priests, or even religion at all in no way shows that God exists. The plurality of religions shows that they all can't be right. So perhaps none of them are right.


Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
--> @Alec
God does exist, but only in the mind. I'm an apatheist BTW.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,521
3
3
3
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
3
--> @Paul
That seems to be a contradiction to me.

You've involved yourself in a discussion concerning the nature of gods, therefore you have shown interest not apathy.

If you were truly apathetic towards theism, you would have yawned and clicked on some other topic.

Nonetheless, I agree with the notion that Gods exists, but only in the mind.

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Alec
would you consider an intelligent designer "God"?  Reason I ask is I just listen to some Stephen C. Meyer and he has some powerful arguments for, but not specifically saying there is a "God".
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,102
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Praise JEsus
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @janesix
The pope could exist without God.

How?  The bible says that Jesus appointed Peter to be the 1st pope.  It´s not like any other religion has something the same or similar.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @SkepticalOne
Why would a man elected by other men to be the 'conduit to God' be evidence of a god?
Because Jesus appointed them, not a society of people.  It´s not like the Israelites were thinking, ¨Who will be our first pope?¨  Jesus appointed the first pope.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @janesix
The plurality of religions shows that they all can't be right. So perhaps none of them are right.

I used to believe this until I found out the evidence that is the pope and the continuation of popes that were appointed by God.  Who else appointed the first pope?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
would you consider an intelligent designer "God"?

I probably would.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Alec
in that case, from what I know via theories etc, imo there is more reason to believe there IS intelligent design vs not/random occurrence or whatever people want to call it.
something must have caused the big bang anyway as he put it, physics is about how things interact but not where they come from.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,583
3
3
4
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
4
--> @Alec
Arguing with religious people is worse than with atheists but I'll say this and leave you to your own beliefs. Jesus never established a silly Papacy, rather a spiritual principle. Jesus never established eating his flesh and drinking blood, but a spiritual principle. The principle behind the passage involving Peter was a confession, it had nothing to do with Peter or his bloodline lol. The principle with "consuming" flesh and blood obviously was the understanding of application. Application of course means to do, funny how the Catholics attempted to solidify principles that could only be construed as understanding an underlying principle. What a shame, it's like everything Jesus came to break down religious goofs tried to reinforce. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @EtrnlVw
I´m not catholic but was raised that way.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 797
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Alec
The notion that the words and actions of Jesus are significant comes only with the presupposition that there is a God and Jesus was his son. To use the words of Jesus as evidence for god is a circular argument.

Starting with the existence of a god to prove the existence of a god is cheating logic. It's sort of like saying "the daughter of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said X". What is being said is irrelevant if the existence of the FSM and his daughter are not established fact...especially when trying to establish their existence as fact!





Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @SkepticalOne
If Jesus didn't appoint the first pope, then who did?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 797
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Alec
Well, men speaking on behalf of a god - obviously.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @SkepticalOne
It's not like Peter was elected by the people to be the pope.  Any men who did this would need Jesus as evidence.  The Israelite people were originally non Christian until they saw Jesus.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 797
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Alec
If Ollivander didn't give Harry Potter a wand, then who did?

I hope you see if someone doesnt hold a story to necessarily be true, then appealing to the story (as a proof of the overall narrative) is a waste of time.


EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,583
3
3
4
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
4
--> @Alec
If Jesus didn't appoint the first pope, then who did?

Lol the Catholics, or those who interpreted that teaching the WRONG way. Either way it was a misconception and a detrimental one, did you not pay attention to what I said about principles? go back and read that passage, was Jesus trying to establish a papacy or was He establishing a principle? 

I´m not catholic but was raised that way.

Then no need to fall into that baloney, the pure Gospels are better than any religious concoction. Jesus never established a papacy, that was pure hogwash. Jesus came to tear down the power and control of religious authority, not build it back up. 


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,439
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @Alec
Does God exist? Simply yes. He is perceived and believed by his adherents. And the papacy is actually a Pagan rite--in reference not to Peter, but to the Babylonian fish god, Dagon. If you notice the staff of the cardinals and bishops, "the crosiers," they're actually derived from the staff, Lituus, also known as the "crooked wand." The papal headdress, "Mitre,"  further informs the aforementioned argument because upon further inspection, the folded hat likens to a fish's mouth. Vatican city used to be known as "Saturnia" in veneration of the roman god, Saturn, who in his many incarnations over time can be related to the greek god, Chronos, the Egyptian god, Osiris and P'tah, and the Sumerian god, An. In other words, I'm stating that Catholicism is a pagan religion. With that said, most religions are.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,583
3
3
4
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
4
Upon this "rock" (confession, not Peter literally) I will build my "church" (people, not building) and the gates of hell will never prosper against it. In other words the confession that Peter made is what that principle was built upon, not Peter himself but his confession. This applies to everyone not just some stupid papacy. This teaching was for the individual as well as collectively, but had nothing to do with a literal interpretation. As a matter of fact it was shown in a few passages later how fallible Peter really was. Often time folks get hung up on the figurative speech of Jesus, on the other hand it's so simple it's a wonder how anyone screwed it up!
Even if Peter was to be interpreted as infallible how is it that anyone after him was to be considered the same?? that's not how spirituality works at all...they could be a total nutcases lol, the whole thing is ridiculous from start to finish. The Catholic religion is almost the opposite of what Jesus represented.

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,583
3
3
4
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
4
--> @Alec
If God doesn’t exist, how does the pope exist

A much better statement would be if God doesn't exist...how does Jesus exist? the Pope, any of them have no comparison to Jesus, not even close. Jesus was the one that resurfaced the face of religion, revealed another dimension/aspect of God, showed a much better way to view and relate to God. The way Jesus related to God was basically unheard of, it showed how one can be connected with such a reality it could be referred to as "Father". 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Alec
A Boson particle was thought to exist and 50 years later they proved that it did.  One of many examples proving much after the thought.