Sentences with phrase «assume god exists»

But for the sake of the article if we assume God exists then being gay isn't a problem because you don't have to live in sin.

There is absolutely no reason, scientifically or otherwise, to assume any gods exist.

Not exact matches

I mean, you can stroke your ego with pride to assume that any god who does exist would somehow automatically be very invested in your life, but that's just presumptuous with no reason.

And there is a better chance fairies exist than your god (assuming you are describing the judeo - christina god; always have to ask because there have been thousands throughout humanity).

You assume that god absolutely 100 % does not exist and so without doing any further investigation decide that now the aliens AND the humans must not be that intelligent, you confirm your own conclusion (see what I did there?)

You said, «My point was that in referring to God as an imaginary friend, you are assuming God doesn't exist.»

In order to say anything about a god existing, or reating, or doing anything, one assumes a PROCESS, and all processes require time.

You are correct, if one assumes atheism or a fundamentally different religious cosmology, that the possibility I stated will seem like a false cause (this unemployment came later, therefore that cosmic battle caused it), but again, that would come down to the age - old debate over whether there is a God v. Satan battle in the classical Christian sense (do either God or Satan exist and, if so, how?).

Atheists will never argue «let's suppose God existed» and use backward chaining reasoning to see if there's any plausible explanation, simply because it's like assuming Santa Claus exists and trying to build a plausible reason for how that could be possible.

You ASSUME no such being as God exist because you ASSUME Him to be subject to the same laws of nature of this universe in which we exist.

Science has no tools to detect soul or spirit or god, so science ASSumes that they must not exist.

I assume he's thinking of people who got mad at God because he failed to do something they believe he should have done and decided he must not exist.

thats assuming that the god you believe in is the real god (which in Pascal's case is the christian god)... what if any of the thousands of other gods that have existed over history is the real god?

If such a God exists, it seems eminently more reasonable to assume the latter.

Though I can not be certain, I assume that demons believe that God exists as the Trinity, and that God is holy, righteous, and good, and that Jesus was God incarnate, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and rose again from the dead.

Considering that there isn't a shred of evidence that any god exists, it is somewhat silly to assume they do.

No logical reason to even assume your god might exist.

Now, assume with me for a second that God exists (I firmly believe He does) for the sake of argument.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this.

After this, that I assume is news for you, If you can show to me for sure how I can prove anything else but my own mind exist, without God, I'll happily become an atheist again.

Why, assuming god even exists, do we need to worship him?

Of course, that's assuming that your god exists, and that slavery is immoral to him (neither of which is supported).

He acts in practice as though God does not exist and, without arguing the matter, assumes rather uncritically that religion is something outgrown.

It assumes the existence of God to prove that God exists, and shows the poverty of views that claim God does not exist.

As an example, from your point of view as a believer, I can assume you think atheists are wrong, and you are right in your belief that god exists.

Could it be that atheists know there really is God, and they don't like being reminded that they are wrong in assuming He doesn't exist and that they are not accountable to Him?

It is actually a method of Christian apologetics called «Presuppositionalism», which assumes the exisistence of God to prove that He exists and to point out the poverty of other views.

Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense.

But the problem is made unduly complicated when we assume that God exists for our welfare and fulfillment rather than the other way around.

Pondering Jean - Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, Arguello decided to assume that God did not exist and to live accordingly: «Heaven was closed for me; it was as if an enormous slab of cement formed on top of me and life began to be very hard.»

Even before we get to Genesis we have to first find out 1) what is God and 2) what does «existence» mean and 3) does God exist, we have not done any of these we just assumed that the other person knows what we mean by these terms, a dangerous assumption at best.

It should be noted that Guardini assumes, more decisively than I do, that «if God does not exist, everything is permitted» is a fundamental part of Ivan's intellectual equipment.)

Just because one group of people 2nd the opinion of another earlier group of people, does not mean that the opinion is the opinion of God (assuming God even exists and has an opinion on the matter).

You are assuming god doesn't exist to prove he doesn't exist.

It's assumed that Stalin and Mao were atheists because they suppressed religion, but we really don't have any quotes about their personal views about gods existing.

But there are many youngsters who have been brought up in the Faith but who in adolescence are overwhelmed by the atheist intellectual atmosphere of our times and who begin to assume that you can't have a modern scientific outlook and also be a Catholic - that God can not be demonstrated to exist at all.

Of course, the love of God for any particular others could only be contingent, assuming that God alone exists necessarily, all other individuals and events existing or occurring merely contingently.

There's as much evidence for god as there is for Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, yet we assume that they do not exist.

You have based your translation from hinduism, absurdity of hindu's, ignorant s, Word hindu did not exist in hindu pagan literature before arrival of Muslim's in subcontinent, Letter S always refers to the essence of a matter, not high or law, lets assume you are right for a moment, haw would you translate word hanuman, monkey god of hindu's, ignorant s.

Western proofs that God exists, such as Pascal's Wager, have implicitely assumed that God is the Christian God.

No god, should any exist, assuming it is a god of love, would approve of the hatred, bigotry, or religious wars which have been carried out in his name.

@Teddy I will say it again: «proof» should be the simplest of things to obtain if God exists and if you truly have a personal relationship with him that uses prayer — assuming prayer works as well... Just ask God to give us the proof that he surely already knows would be acceptable.

However, to assert that no god exists is to assume knowledge of the universe.

It's interesting how quickly people assume good and evil can exist if God does not exist.

for example, assume there is a god who exists in heaven, does that really answer questions about creation or just push them back to another time and place?

The first reason they suggest that a person might believe in God is that if someone is brought up a Catholic then: «to keep the promises they made at the baptism, the parents would probably teach them prayers... they would say prayers to God thanking him for looking after them and so it would seem natural for them to believe in God... at church, they would hear people talking about God and assume that God exists.»

What I'm trying to get at is that I think it * may * be possible for one to come to a literal acceptance of the Bible for good reasons, assuming those reasons exist, and if this is the case, then the Bible itself would become the standard by which you measure your experience to determine if what you're feeling or thinking is really God or not.

If one assumes that God exists, one must inevitably concede the possibility that he has disclosed himself to some human beings more directly than to others.

your argument assumes God is from our real... but if he CRAETED it (to create must mean it did ont exist until it was creatred - duh) then he is NOT from our real,!

it existed for eternity... God is not created,... it assumes a beginning... which there is none for the Creator