?

Not so a much a question as much as a staement. He said he didn't care which faith you had but that he would ask and demand reasons and justififcations for that supposed knowledge. All i saw was ignorant postings back like who the f are you and who cares about what you think. I would like to point out that he clearly wasnt saying he didn't care about your beliefs whatso ever i mean obviously he does or he wouldn't try and argue with you guys, what he was saying is that the religion doesn't matter he just wants to know why you guys happen to have that belief and if you claim to know that that proof needs to be presented. So my question is how are you Christians and Muslims good christians or muslims when you curse at people or put people down and be-little them, and secondly seeing how ya'll messed up with even understanding his statement doesn't that show you your own ignorance and stupidity? Thought i'd ask

So i've been informed the ultimate sin is to deny Jesus christ as the way. In so doing it's hopeless to be save. One response was it's hopeless not b/c you can't be forgiven but b/c you won't accept the forgiveness. So here's my question. I'm ATHEIST used to be a catholic ( christian ) so i've settled the dispute of which is worse suicide or disbelief and it seems that it's disbelief and some seem torn on this; some say suicide is unforgiveable and others say it is feel ferr to put your opinion, but my main question(s) is(are) if I die and didn't believe and go to before him to be judged am I not then allowed to believe since i now see him and can i not then repent.

Also I get that no good deed can cancel a sin supposedly, but I'm kind of wondering how is it that a person in jail for rape and murder who believes in God can get it but i can't?

And further if that's the ultimate unforgiveable sin what does that say for people who believe in God but not Jesus as the savior like Jews and Muslims?

What is the one unforgiveable sin? Someone posted the question and it was worded better but essentially it asked what was the one thing that is unforgiveable according to God.

Many answers were not believing in him.

If that is the case that the ONE unforgiveable sin is not believing in him where does suicide fall? Inother words are ya'll telling me I could kill myself and somehow be forgiven and get into heaven but if i didn't believe but lived a good life I'd be cast to hell.

If someone has the legit answer please say it and if you care to comment on my drawn conclusion from that feel free to.

I asked a while back whether or not someone can believe in something without evidence for it but not only that can someone rationally still believe something even though the facts may say otherwise or n fact do say otherwise. Can you still hold a belief if it's been proven false. The obvious answer is yes you can still hold the belief and i get that, but then you can no longer at the very least call it knowledge or say you KNOW this or that. This ties into what knowledge is and so far all we have of what knowledge basic components or requirements are that Knowledge= a justified true belief. In short meaning that if one knows something that person (i) believes it (ii) it's true (iii) and one is justified in believing it. This is the traditional account of knowledge. There are two types which i leave out presuming that you know of them but ill scan them quickly there is also a know how and an acquaintence know. Examples are a basketball player who knows how to dunk b/c he can do it and the diff. b/w him and say a coach who knows how to dunk but only b/c of fundamentals. Or better put think of a young child who is a natural at skiing and then the adult ski instructor. The adult knows how to skii and can explain but likewise the prodigy child knows how to ski but couldn't even begin to explain it to us. Then the Know of acquaintence is diff. too b/c thats' lie do you know President Obama? and the answer is yes ( i guess it could be put better as do you know of .... Obama etc.) but really do you know him know him. Or even closer to home do youo know your mom. And it's like yeah sure; well i ask do you REALLY know your mom like what about your mom when she was young and a teen or your mom as the co-worker you know. So those are the others essentially but those are not our concern we are speaking about knowing something or other about the world. So i say i know there's a table in front of me. How? And these are some very good epistemological questions. Mine has to do with the whole traditional analysis of knowledge or TAK. TAK says that knowledge is justified true belief.

So back to what i was saying up at the top if one knows that there belief is false or has been falsified can they still rationally hold that belief. So my question is more so about the rationality of holding the belief. That's my concern. Basically boiling down to the belief in GOD and also how many like to say I KNOW GOD ( either personally or something else i don't really get that ) and furthe I KNOW GOD EXISTS. My question is usually ok well what religion do you follow. There best answer should be none b/c it is rational to be a theist or deist ( believe in an greater entity not necessarily a religion though ) but i beg to differ that it is rational to believe any of OUR religions. I must point out further though that i myself do not believe in anything higher but this is of no consequence. My question is focused more so on the fact that people tend to believe thier religions sacred texts to be the true word of GOD. Now if that's the case then it must be all true and accurate you cannot pick and choose which parts you want to believe you either believe it all or you don't. This is not the same with sciences i should point out too. Meaning that i can pick and choose which parts of a theory can be kept or that i want to keep but not b/c i want to or like them nest but b/c they can be proven or have been so huge difference there. So like i may not take all of newton's theory of time space and gravity but i will keep parts of it maybe not all of it. But this is a man's writings known to be fallible as we are which is also a diff. God is not fallible and so if this is the word of GOD then it must all be true. So i go further without having the argument b/c none is needed that there are parts of the Bible that are just plainly false please if you need examples then you haven't read it, nevertheless here are a few: the great flood to me very doubtful b/c then the whole noah's ark story and how we are still here and all the other animals etc., but mostly the world is no older than five thousand years old, some say ten thousand ( who cares both are false ) , the fixation of species ( they don't change [false] ) and etc.. My question then to them is how do you still rationally belive it (ALL of it i'm assuming b/c like i said seems odd to believe only parts seems to do GOD an unjustice if you're a true follower ) if it's been proven to be false in many instances? Can one still say rationally i believe the world is flat or in other words and this must be true ONE CANNOT HOLD A FALSE BELIEF. In other words once something is known about a certain proposition or statement or situation there cannot then be a belief that contradicts that knowledge. In other words since i know women are equal to men b/c all humans are equal ( putting aside abilitites and such and mainly in terms of rights ) can i still hold the belief that women are inferior to men and so sh

I didn't expect to recieve some of the answers that i did and indeed disagree with many. I would have rather thought that many would understand that simply it is impossible for noting to exist by it's mere definition or as many of you all appealed to a concept and as such can't be answered. I disagree and say that although it is a concept it isn't what one called emptiness for that is something and it is spatial and temporal in fact, and although it is a concept one can conclude that it can not exist. One has the concept of perfection or of an equilateral triangle but no suchthing which exemplifies either of these example exists. No perfect object if so how, why? Like a perfect circle whats it's size if i drew it exactly with the same ratios but bigger ( clearly now a different circle ) is this one not the perfect circle why or why not? So even though it is a concept one has to admit that it is like infiity and such and is hard to comprehend/understand and mostly hard to imagine. Now i am not saying tht b/c it is hard to imagine it being means that it can not be. Never once. But by sheer definition or essence of the word nothing and the same with the word exist(s) there can not exist nothing.

Here is where i think you all will enjoy tearing me to shreads. Before i state it i must also state why i stated the first conclusion mainly b/c when one asks me what came before the big bang, and how can something come from nothing, and so on i appeal to my first conclusion that it is impossible for nothing to exist ,so although i may not know what it is or was ( like ) at the beginning, i still can know a priori that nothing can not exist, therefore something existed. Put forth in a better way as to the guy who enjoyed my Plato reference even when all matter is taken out of the equation there seem to still exist some things ( ideas/concepts/numbers/laws ) . By the way i appeal to Plato clearly for those who like Plato's idea of forms and i mention Plato b/c he was at the very least a dualist/perhaps pluralist but nonetheless to help present ( PRESENT not justify or give proof i use it as a tool of presentation for those who at least understand forms or ideas/concepts in the manner that he had ) what i will state here. So let's say that there is no universe,no matter and no time or space. Logically there still exist numbers and ideas namely laws such as modus ponens and modus tollens, Law of substitutivity, law of excluded middle, Demorgan's law, etc. so if you like Plato and can imagine these intangible ( perhaps unattainable ) highest forms then it isn't hard for one to understand what i mean when i say that even if we assume and grant that all matter and the universe itself didn't exist that there would still exist these things or "objects" ,for the lack of a better word ( because a very widely accepted in phil. of language is that something is an object and ideas or things which we attribute names and the such pick out objects and since ideas like numbers 1 or 2 and 4 can not be picked out then they are not really objects but like i said i lack a word for them that correctly places them i will think on a term for them later perhaps necessary truths or objects but nevertheless you should be able to understand what i mean), and/or those ideas and concepts. So when asked," how could something come from nothing?", i merely respond there cannot be nothing and therefore the question is nonsense i agree that something cannot come from nothing but i never said that there was nothing ( to begin with ), quite on the contrary, there can not be/exist nothing and so by that principle to ask the question which involves some object or entity that exists as nothing and to say that how is it possible from this object or entity which is here called nothing could something arise or come into being is already presuming ( quite fallaciously i might add ) that this nothing is somehow something which then admits that there is something and in fact not nothing in there example and so either they don't really understand the concept of nothing or they somehow make this nothing the subject of a question ( how can nothing bare something? ) which to them now makes it a thing which to me is also fallacious. I believe it is more likely the former namely they don't have a clear understanding of the term/word nothing, but even this isn't enough, for one would also have to understand what we mean when we say exists. If one does sufficiently comprehend both of those ideas/concepts then one ultimatley must conclude nothing cannot exist and so to ask the question how can something come from nothing becomes nonsense and clearly something has gone wrong, like i sad earlier there seems to be a presumtion in the question that nothing can exist and just be there.But that is the problem where is this there and how is that so? Further i seem to know a priori that nothing can not exist anyways so why bother trying to figure out if or how something can

My question concerns the question "Can there exist nothing?" or "Can nothing exist?" and my answer is no. My statement would be Nothing can not exist or There cannot exist nothing , either of these encompasses what i wish to express. Namely that to suggest, or to use the word exist implies that there is in fact something ( actually existing object; tangible/concrete and even possibly abstract objects like ideas and concepts (forms if you like plato) ) , but by the very nature of the word nothing it can't be a thing and therefore cannot exist. If something exists whether abstractly or actually/concretely it nonetheless is something and not nothing. So nothing can not exist. This is my conclusion.? ANY THOUGHTS