Jennifer asked:


As a Christian, I feel sorry for the Chinese brothers and sisters who have to pray underground. They risk their lives for having faith in God. Why does the communist China not allowing freedom of worshipping? Why are Christians being prosecuted and killed in China?

Nick M asked:


We are sometimes transformed by certain events in our life. We then have a story to tell. We might attribute the transformation to God. We might also find some magical connection between our story and the words written in certain scriptures. Question is when does “bearing testimony” become God peddling?

Ruby asked:


How come some people are referred for psychological assessment if they say they are communication with ‘God’, yet Nun’s who claim to have a direct intimate relationship with God are respected?

Who has the right to decide what is reality and what isnt.

How do we know what is real and what is not!

TKD540 asked:


Many things in the world are unfair. People having billions and then three billion people in the universe working for under 2 dollars a day. People die, starve, and experience great suffering. How do you think God will accomodate them for this, considering that its already in the past and it will eternally be engraved in reality?

ohmshri asked:


How to believe in something in which you dont even know what it is? Why every religion is manipulative or used manipulatively? Why God cant be debated and questioned? Why religions dont evole to reflect science, culture and society?

Pinkerton asked:


Just for fun, if a psychiatrist were to interview God. What condition would God be diagnosed with? And what kind of treatment would he prescribe?

Anthropomorphic asked:


On page 130, Grant describes St. Ambrose’s rejection of “Aristotle’s incorruptible celestial ether, because this would imply the incorruptibility of the heavens. But the world is corruptible…” It seems to me that Aristotle’s model of the outer sphere can be represented quite easily as God Himself, or even as the heavens in which He dwells. Is God not a perfect being, just as incorruptible as the heavens described by Aristotle? Or is Ambrose suggesting that there is a difference between the Earth and what lays beyond it. Even so, this still resembles Aristotle’s conception of the Un-moved Mover ‘allowing’ the Mover to operate.

lufiabuu asked:


Happiness…. who doesn’t want it? Isn’t it the goal of everythign we do? People worship God so that He might make them happy. So if some how you were always happy (yes, i know, a paradox because happiness i relative) even if God sent you to hell, and you were still happy there, God wouldn’t have power over you, would he? Unless He is omnipotent and can somehow force you to be unhappy, but some say he doesn’t violate free will. And suposedly, smiling for 60 seconds makes you happy. So, can God defeat eternal happiness ( > God?)?
LtColonel, it seems like an awfuly lot of people woship God so they will be blessed or go to heaven. Just listining to religious things, you will hear an abudance of thngs like: “go good and you will be blessed” or “Treat your neighbors well and you will go to heaven.” So it seem like some of the reasons they give to worship God is that you will be rewarded. And rewards aren’t really rewards if they aren’t good/make you happy

Space Cowboy asked:


I don’t care if you believe in God, I just want to know what you think the best argument you’ve heard against his existence. For the sake of this question, assume that God is:
1. Eternal, or at least as old as the universe
2. Omnipresent, or at least capable of being many places at once
3. Omnipotent, or so powerful that we wouldn’t understand his limitaions
4. Sensient (no Hagelian “Geist”, I mean a god that knows he exists and that he is God.)
5. Purposeful.
6. Not “created” or “evolved” or other things that would make him just a better version of us.

I am also asking the opposite question, and I would appreciate people answering both questions.
I actually asked the opposite question as a different question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag.2XwmaMxhO4elIql.fKDrsy6IX?qid=20060710180340AAKJGw5

So there is 10 points available for both answers if you answer the question in both places!

Bumsworth asked:


…and can you be agnostic about both? “Clusters of galaxies would fly apart unless they were held together by gravitational attraction. The mass required is considerably greater than the mass of all the galaxies… It follows therefore that there must be extra dark matter present in clusters of galaxies outside of the galaxies we see” Stephen Hawking.

Why does it follow?

Why must there be something else which we can not identify to make a theory valid? Could it not be something is missing from the theory rather than an “mysterious” substance that essentially requires belief in the same way that people believe in a God?….by the way any people championing a particular religion in an answer will not be considered for points
“Belief in dark matter” is a matter of logical conclusion based on scientific observation.”

I understand that science can be unemotional but how can anyone conclude anything logically when something is not observable? Surely the question of a creator/something beyond this universe can also be unemotional too, a genuine curiousity. Science tends to stop at the observable universe, understandably. And if scientists accept that there is matter we can’t detect IN this universe isn’t it fair to ask whether something we can’t detect lies beyond the universe? If science stops before asking that then fine. But it seems wrong to me to you use science to “prove” there is nothing beyond.
I don’t know if there is a god or not but I lean towards there being something beyond our physical universe where maybe our physical laws don’t apply. For me this is not a security blanket because if there IS nothing after this I’ll never know, will I?- what’s to lose? And I don’t lean towards there being something beyond for rules to govern my life. Nor do I live this life for what may follow.