The Bible's Greatest Contradiction

[Socrastein]

The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.

[Knight_Errant]

In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.
While I agree with the general thrust of your post, you need to take this bit out- you can't prove a negative.

[Sparkle]

( Singing voice ) Onward athiesssst soOOuuUUldierrrrs :woo:

[Socrastein]

While I agree with the general thrust of your post, you need to take this bit out- you can't prove a negative.

First off, I didn't say proof. I said evidence. Second, I find it interesting you would tell me I'm wrong without even knowing what I'm speaking of. Third, what do you mean by negative? I can prove that there are no pictures in my post: see, look. I'm sure you have something else in mind by negative.

[Knight_Errant]

No you can't. I can maintain that there are pictures in your post that you can't see. And you can argue with me until your face goes blue. That occam's razor thing you were going on about? works both ways. You can't prove that anything does not exist, never happened or is not purple.

[Socrastein]

No you can't. I can maintain that there are pictures in your post that you can't see. And you can argue with me until your face goes blue. That occam's razor thing you were going on about? works both ways. You can't prove that anything does not exist, never happened or is not purple.

Um, if they can't be seen, they aren't pictures by definition. And even if you want to go that route, I'll step it up a bit: nowhere is there a whale that is not a whale.

That's true by definition buddy, I don't recommend you try to refute that one.

You can't prove that anything does not exist, never happened or is not purple.

That has nothing to do with Ockham's razor. I'm assuming by "proof" you mean "absolute and undeniable proof", rather than "sufficient evidence to convince one of a proposition's validity". So if you're being absolute about it, why specify negative? If we're going by your definition, you can't prove ANYTHING, affirmative OR negative. So proof no longer means anything.

I dunno about you, I like to use words that have some application, rather than define them in a way they have no meaning and can't be used. But that's just me.

Oh, and in case you missed it the first two times, I said "evidence" not "proof".

[Sparkle]

Ahem* - A house divided amongst itself cannot stand - Jesus Christ

You guys are here for apparently here for one thing, to tell us Christians how stupid we are, so stop arguing with eachother! It's not effective for your own argument, sheesh. ;)

[Knight_Errant]

No, I heard you perfectly well the first two times. I doubt that you move your lips quickly enough for me to be able to miss it. Evidence is part of proof, and without something to prove you can't have evidence.

Um, if they can't be seen, they aren't pictures by definition. And even if you want to go that route, I'll step it up a bit: nowhere is there a whale that is not a whale.

That's true by definition buddy, I don't recommend you try to refute that one.
I said 'can't bee seen by you. You might want to pay a bit more attention next time.

That has nothing to do with Ockham's razor. I'm assuming by "proof" you mean "absolute and undeniable proof", rather than "sufficient evidence to convince one of a proposition's validity". So if you're being absolute about it, why specify negative? If we're going by your definition, you can't prove ANYTHING, affirmative OR negative. So proof no longer means anything.
You can have absolute and undeniable proof of something that does actually exist, but you can't even have sufficient evidence to convince one of a proposition's validity if the event or thing in question never happened or existed in the first place.
Ahem* - A house divided amongst itself cannot stand - Jesus Christ

You guys are here for apparently here for one thing, to tell us Christians how stupid we are, so stop arguing with eachother! It's not effective for your own argument, sheesh
Nah, stating the obvious is starting to become boring. For me, I mean. I don't care how boring it becomes for you.

[Socrastein]

You can have absolute and undeniable proof of something that does actually exist

Like what?

Evidence is part of proof, and without something to prove you can't have evidence.

Indeed, but you can have evidence of something without claiming it's been proven. Like a naturalistic origin of the universe for example: there's plenty of evidence for that, but it hasn't been proven yet.

I'm waiting for you to refute my negative claim that there don't exist any whales that aren't whales. Until you do, it would seem I've proven a negative, now wouldn't it?

[uki]

The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.

wow!! your understanding of the bible is unsurpassed. absolutely astounding... astonishing!!! where is your church located. teach me. teach us. my precious... mine... all mine.

[Knight_Errant]

Like what?
I was proposing to hit somebody with something, and then hit somebody with nothing, and then ask you to tell me the difference.

Indeed, but you can have evidence of something without claiming it's been proven. Like a naturalistic origin of the universe for example: there's plenty of evidence for that, but it hasn't been proven yet.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's relevant. Unless you're saying that by not claiming it's proven, you are claiming that it has been disproven, which I don't support. The two are not necessarily one and the same thing.


I'm waiting for you to refute my negative claim that there don't exist any whales that aren't whales. Until you do, it would seem I've proven a negative, now wouldn't it?
By claiming that there are no whales which are not whales, you're just arguing that all whales are whales, aren't you? whereas if you were claiming that all whales are not whales, and somebody else argued that all whales were in fact whales, it would not be the same thing for you to claim that all whales could not be proven to be whales as for him to claim that all whales could be proven to be whales- provided the conditions for proving that whales are whales have in fact been met.

[Radok]

The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.
The fact that everything is here seems like excellent evidence to me.

[Aegis]

The fact that everything is here seems like excellent evidence to me.
But is that because you already believe, or evidence that leads you to a belief?

[tbubb1]

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

The fact that I'm breathing now is evidence enough for me that God exists. :cool:

[pj_goober]

The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.

I'm a devout atheist and i still couldn't disagree with what you are saying any more.

Your post is garbage, for a start what you are presenting is not a "contradiction" in any way. The existance of God is a matter of faith, as is the non-existance of god. However strongly you believe that God does not exist you cannot prove that he doesn't, in much the same way that a religious person cannot prove that he does.

To someone who does believe in god, life the universe and everything is testament to his existance, this is not proof or evidence in your eyes, but in the eyes of an atheist there is little that would count as proof - and visa versa. You are trying to apply (very bad) logic to a religious debate. Religion is about faith, faith is about belief contrary to logic, so logic has no part to play.

May i ask what the purpose of your post was? I mean a post along the lines of I don't believe in god - prove me wrong wouldn't have been fundementally differant?

[jonmonk]

The fact that I'm breathing now is evidence enough for me that God exists. :cool:As long as you don't consider it scientific evidence then that's fine. If you're saying that the fact that everything around us exists is an amazing thing and that if looked at from a certain point of view you can feel a connection with the universe because you are a part of it and it inspires you then nice one. Enjoy.

[uki]

i am soscareditstime... :p

[Radok]

But is that because you already believe, or evidence that leads you to a belief?
Cause it makes more sense than saying it was always there, especially since there isn't enough matter in the universe to crunch it back down. It can't go on banging and crunching, it had to have been a one time deal. And to say that everything, including life, evolved from hydrogen evolving into other elements which then made solar systems which had planets with chemicles which magically bacame amino acids and dna and finally magically became a living cell which somehow wound up human after billions of years seems like more of a stretch than to just say God made it. If you have to place you faith on very sketchy odds or God, I would say God would be the best choice.

[pj_goober]

Cause it makes more sense than saying it was always there, especially since there isn't enough matter in the universe to crunch it back down. It can't go on banging and crunching, it had to have been a one time deal. And to say that everything, including life, evolved from hydrogen evolving into other elements which then made solar systems which had planets with chemicles which magically bacame amino acids and dna and finally magically became a living cell which somehow wound up human after billions of years seems like more of a stretch than to just say God made it. If you have to place you faith on very sketchy odds or God, I would say God would be the best choice.

thats a very VERY poor understanding of the commonly held beliefs amongst the science community about how the universe and life came into being.

The thing is, science is not a answer in itself, the scientific method of hypothesis and testing - is a good way of attempting to disprove beliefs. Evidence can be used to prove, within reasonable doubt (or at least is incapable of disproving) that evolution is something that both happens (fact - you can watch evolution happening in bacteria samples - look at MRSA and SARS)and is a reasonable way of explaining how single celled protozoa changed over time to become complex animals including people. Similar methods of testing are used to back up all scientific theories. If there is a scientific theory you doubt (more than likely through a lack of understanding ) i guarantee you that the best and most qualified scientists in that field will have tried to prove it wrong.

[medi]

And to say that everything, including life, evolved from hydrogen evolving into other elements which then made solar systems which had planets with chemicles which magically bacame amino acids and dna and finally magically became a living cell which somehow wound up human after billions of years seems like more of a stretch than to just say God made it. If you have to place you faith on very sketchy odds or God, I would say God would be the best choice.


I think the point is that scientists say those things didn't happen by magic.

You, on the other hand, are saying exactly that.



In any case, trying to figure out the mechanism by which life happened has a benefit to man's knowledge of the universe, whereas sitting on your butt saying "God made it" doesn't expand our knowledge one bit.

[Radok]

thats a very VERY poor understanding of the commonly held beliefs amongst the science community about how the universe and life came into being.

The thing is, science is not a answer in itself, the scientific method of hypothesis and testing - is a good way of attempting to disprove beliefs. Evidence can be used to prove, within reasonable doubt (or at least is incapable of disproving) that evolution is something that both happens (fact - you can watch evolution happening in bacteria samples - look at MRSA and SARS)and is a reasonable way of explaining how single celled protozoa changed over time to become complex animals including people. Similar methods of testing are used to back up all scientific theories. If there is a scientific theory you doubt (more than likely through a lack of understanding ) i guarantee you that the best and most qualified scientists in that field will have tried to prove it wrong.
It doesn't matter if they tried to prove it wrong. Check the infectious creationism hit Briton or whatever that thread is called now to see what I mean. And just because bacteria changes to other bacteria, doesn't mean spontanious generation is possible, which is the whole idea behind evolution.

[Radok]

I think the point is that scientists say those things didn't happen by magic.

You, on the other hand, are saying exactly that.



Well, when you can explain and prove that a primordeal soup sprang to life, then we'll call it science, how bout that?

[WatchfulAbyss]

Cause it makes more sense than saying it was always there, especially since there isn't enough matter in the universe to crunch it back down. It can't go on banging and crunching, it had to have been a one time deal. And to say that everything, including life, evolved from hydrogen evolving into other elements which then made solar systems which had planets with chemicles which magically bacame amino acids and dna and finally magically became a living cell which somehow wound up human after billions of years seems like more of a stretch than to just say God made it. If you have to place you faith on very sketchy odds or God, I would say God would be the best choice.

But, arn't you saying that very same thing, except about god (I mean for the god idea to work, he had to always be there). I mean saying that a being omniscient, omnipotent, outside of time and our frame of reality as we know it, sounds better. I don't think that's easier to say. Wouldn't the easiest/best choice, be more along the lines of "I don't know".

[tbubb1]

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe you evolved from a rock than came from the Living God.

[WatchfulAbyss]

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe you evolved from a rock than came from the Living God.

Not really... Faith is Faith, and who said anything about rocks?

You say god is living, where? If you say heaven, where is that? Why is it he doesn't need a creator? I mean, all things living, came from something living right, so how could he be alive, if he didn't come from another living being? :D I mean really, to a nontheist this makes very little to no sense, just like what they believe makes no sense to you........ Like I said "I don't know" is easier to say..........




P.s
Maybe it was a living rock..... :woo:

[Socrastein]

By claiming that there are no whales which are not whales, you're just arguing that all whales are whales, aren't you?

Yes, the same way that by claiming there are no metaphysical beings I'm claiming all beings are physical. You can phrase any negative as an affirmative proposition, and the other way around.

The existance of God is a matter of faith, as is the non-existance of god. However strongly you believe that God does not exist you cannot prove that he doesn't, in much the same way that a religious person cannot prove that he does.

Well I never claimed to have proven that God does not exist. So what's your point?

To someone who does believe in god, life the universe and everything is testament to his existance, this is not proof or evidence in your eyes, but in the eyes of an atheist there is little that would count as proof - and visa versa. You are trying to apply (very bad) logic to a religious debate. Religion is about faith, faith is about belief contrary to logic, so logic has no part to play.

There is much that would count as proof in my eyes. A logically sound proof of God would be evidence (proof, in fact). Experimentally verifiable and repeatable evidence of 'miracles' would also be evidence. If the trumpets sounded and Jesus came to earth, that would be evidence too.

Logic always has a part to play, whether people wish to acknowledge that or not is irrelevent.

Cause it makes more sense than saying it was always there, especially since there isn't enough matter in the universe to crunch it back down. It can't go on banging and crunching, it had to have been a one time deal. And to say that everything, including life, evolved from hydrogen evolving into other elements which then made solar systems which had planets with chemicles which magically bacame amino acids and dna and finally magically became a living cell which somehow wound up human after billions of years seems like more of a stretch than to just say God made it. If you have to place you faith on very sketchy odds or God, I would say God would be the best choice.

The difference you're skipping over is that there is evidence for the universe arising naturally, for all matter and energy arising naturally, for all galaxies and stars arising through natural physical forces, for heavier elements forming in the furnace of a star going supernova, for these heavier elements forming into our planet, for replicators sponteneously arising on the early planet, for these replicators to evolve over billions of years, and for our species to be a product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

There is ample evidence for all of this. It is scientifically and logically consistent, and it proposes no erroneous assumptions or supernatural effects.

So if I have to pick between evidentially supported, logically consistent, and parsimonious explanations, and "Goddidit"... I'll go with the logically sound position.

I think it takes a lot more faith to believe you evolved from a rock than came from the Living God.

Quite right, it would be pretty nuts to think you evolved from a rock, seeing as how there's absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. It'd be as crazy as saying you were created by an unsubstantiated supernatural being.

Good thing evolution doesn't say we evolved from rocks, eh? Sounds like you've been getting your scientific knowledge from Kent Hovind.

[brahman]

Ahem* - A house divided amongst itself cannot stand - Jesus Christ

You guys are here for apparently here for one thing, to tell us Christians how stupid we are, so stop arguing with eachother! It's not effective for your own argument, sheesh. ;)


all in all i think this thread is like some of mine, simply here to test ones ability to argue, and half the time you end up argueing about something that has nothing to do with the topic, such as debating the difference between EVIDENCE and PROOF, which is fun arguement in itself.

[Johnno]

The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.
To get back to the original post, this is not a contradiction, since everything in the bible testifies to God's existance. Whether you believe God to exist or not is a matter of faith, but I don't believe that there is anything in the bible which says that God does not exist.

So your original proposition appears to be fundamentally flawed.

[pj_goober]

And just because bacteria changes to other bacteria, doesn't mean spontanious generation is possible, which is the whole idea behind evolution.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "spontaneous generation" its not a phrase i've ever come across before.

Evolution isn't some crack pot theory. It happens. Do you believe in dogs? evolution (within the lifetime of our recorded history dogs have been bread from feral wolves). It takes but a little thought to see that unnatural selection can result in dramatic genetic changes over time. This is evolution in action. Why do you doubt that it happens. I accept that it takes a leap of understanding and comprehension to believe that the same process is responsible for the development of complex organisms from human beings to trees, all from the same origins. But frankly, just because YOU don't understand how something works, doesn't mean its wrong. Considerably more intelligent people than any of us can prove (with evidence, within reasonable doubt) that evolution [a process which we can see happening] COULD be responsible for the changes neccessary to turn protozoa into people. This doesn't mean that it definately did, you can argue with this till we're both blue in the face and i'll never be able to show for certain that evolution is the cause of those changes. what we do know however is that it is the best explaination availiable. This is true of every scientific theory and proposition that exists now or has ever existed, it is the best explaination availiable with the evidence at hand.

Given that the counter argument is that God (a supernatural being - who refuses to present any evidence of existance as knowledge would deny faith) created man out of dust and women out of a mans rib bone. (no explaination of the mode behind his creation of all of animal kind) I'm going to stick with the scientific explaination as it doesn't rely on magic, instead it relies on demonstratable methods and proveable consequences.

[Socrastein]

I'm not speaking of internal contradictions in the Bible. I'm taking a broader view of the Bible, not simply comparing it to itself, but comparing it to reality.

For instance, if science somehow found conclusive proof that Jesus died and was resurrected on the FOURTH day, that would be a contradiction in the manner I am using it, because it contradicts the Bible which says He rose on the THIRD day. Now, there would be no internal contradiction of course, because the Bible always says he rose on the THIRD day. I'm simply broadening my perspective of the Bible and its consistency.

You're quite right it doesn't contradict itself, I am pointing out that it contradicts what we see and observe, which is just as much a contradiction.

[pj_goober]

I'm not speaking of internal contradictions in the Bible. I'm taking a broader view of the Bible, not simply comparing it to itself, but comparing it to reality.
You're quite right it doesn't contradict itself, I am pointing out that it contradicts what we see and observe, which is just as much a contradiction.

But you are comparing it to YOUR perseption of reality. Which is pointless. Someone who believes looks at the world and sees the existance of god, in their mind there is no contradiction.

[holyheadjch]

my main problem is that if god exists, why has he left all this evidence for us to find that points away from the bible??? Redshift supports the big bang theory, genetics supports evolution. Carbon Dating supports the premise that the universe is billions of years old.

Why would God leave all this evidence for us to find if it leads away from him? Or is he trying to trick us, in which case why is he trying to trick us. If its a test, is it a test we are meant to pass or a test we are meant to fail? The existence of God answers all tough questions - but why is this desirable?

[Johnno]

I'm not speaking of internal contradictions in the Bible. I'm taking a broader view of the Bible, not simply comparing it to itself, but comparing it to reality.
I see.

Well if you take the bible as being the literal truth then it contradicts pretty much everything, including 'common sense', 'reality' and 'intelligent thought'. However, if you treat it as a series of parables and apocryphal stories then it is a different matter. It gets a lot harder to pin down really.

[[T][K][D]]

i hope u guys realise is that...this thread is going NOWHERE ^^...people who believe in god like me will always do so until death, and people who believe that evolution and the big bang *theory* created everything by the most miniscule chance will do so too. So what was the purpose of this thread? To try and prove with religeon with logic and scientific understanding? that isnt going to work no matter how smart you are because religion is based of belief and you cant create a formula for that...take cares..see u in the afterlife ^^

Will~~

[holyheadjch]

[K][D]']see u in the afterlife ^^

Will~~
According to christianity, you probably wont

[Johnno]

[K][D]']i hope u guys realise is that...this thread is going NOWHERE ^^...people who believe in god like me will always do so until death, and people who believe that evolution and the big bang *theory* created everything by the most miniscule chance will do so too.

That makes it sound like there are just two diametrically opposite positions to be taken. But life isn't that simple. Many Christians do not believe that the biblical creation story is literally true, and accept the theory of evolution and the 'big bang'. But they believe that God must have been ultimately responsible for it.

So what was the purpose of this thread? To try and prove with religeon with logic and scientific understanding? that isnt going to work no matter how smart you are because religion is based of belief and you cant create a formula for that...take cares..see u in the afterlife ^^

Will~~Good question. It's a well-trodden path which both theists and atheists obviously enjoy revisiting! :D

[PASmith]

Surely the biggest religious contradiction is the difference between the code of behaviour laid out in the bible (for example) and the ACTUAL behaviour of people that claim to be christians?
People pick and choose what bits they want to believe in or act upon.
How anyone can be a catholic today after the actions of the inquisition and the crusades is truly beyond me. Any organisation that sees fit to ban books in order to safe guard its views is surely a corrupt and worthless organisation built on very shaky foundations?
Banning books indeed. How primitive. They'll be banning "ideas" next.
The nazi party is never going to be an acceptable organisation to belong to and yet the catholic church still is.
They have indulged in very similar practices (genocide, torture, banning books, imprisoning people that dissent, aggressive empire building etc) and yet one is OK and the other not. Very odd.
Perhaps after a suitable amount of time being a nazi will be viewed in the same way as being a catholic?

Overall the main reason that atheists constantly try and convince religious people that their views might be a bit suspect is that to us you guys sound...erm....a bit looney. Sorry about that but it's true. And the fact that people die because of it is even harder to ignore. It's very hard to accept that seemingly intelligent people believe with all their hearts primitive stories with no basis in real experince or tangible evidence.

[amiller127]

Um, if they can't be seen, they aren't pictures by definition. And even if you want to go that route, I'll step it up a bit: nowhere is there a whale that is not a whale.
.

Im not religeous. Dont believe in god and am not really into organised religeon as it can be manipulated to be a very negative thing. But i couldn't resist this.

Technically, the "Killer" Whale, or orca, the nice black and white shamu thing you get at sea world is technically part of the dolphin family......... :D

Sorry - will leave this thread now

[BendzR]

[K][D]']people who believe in god like me will always do so until death, and people who believe that evolution and the big bang *theory* created everything by the most miniscule chance will do so too

I could not agree with you any less. I know people who have changed from one side to the other, for both cases. Including myself.

[HandandFoot]

Surely the biggest religious contradiction is the difference between the code of behaviour laid out in the bible (for example) and the ACTUAL behaviour of people that claim to be christians?
And this is the best arguing point for most atheists and agnostics. One that I cannot even refute!

Christ actually calls his followers to be His light in the world! We are to be His strongest evidence! If the rest of mankind cannot see some semblence of Christ in us, then we are the best argument against Him!

Another point; do not confuse Catholic, LDS, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness, Methodist, Luteran, Episcopal (and others ad nauseum) with real Chritianity. They are organizations created by men (ordinary humans) to coordinate resources, dictate policies, create interpretations, amass political advantage, etc. The Church (which did not exist before Christ) was not a political organization, but a group of fellow believers who congregated together on occassion to worship God and Christ and study and uplift each other. The affore mentioned organizations in most cases) were created to take advantage of those congregations.

As they became more powerful by sheer number of members, they began to exert there influence over politicians and rulers and as we have heard, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". There is no excetion in a religious organization (and not just Christian). What the Catholic church did in eur-asia, they did in the name of God but not at the will of God. We are all left to our own will. God does not rule over us unless we invite Him to do so.

As for miracles as proof; you must first believe before the evidence becomes proof. God will not prove Himself to anyone (since Christ) without faith as the first action. Why? I'll ask Him when I get there. (Having said that last statement, you can now all rest comfortably in the assurance that I am just another whacko and go on living your life in blissful ignorance to what I see as abvious) :D

[holyheadjch]

As for miracles as proof; you must first believe before the evidence becomes proof. God will not prove Himself to anyone (since Christ) without faith as the first action. Why? I'll ask Him when I get there. (Having said that last statement, you can now all rest comfortably in the assurance that I am just another whacko and go on living your life in blissful ignorance to what I see as abvious) :D
This doesn't seem fair, and besides God chatted to Mohammed did he not?

[Johnno]

Another point; do not confuse Catholic, LDS, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness, Methodist, Luteran, Episcopal (and others ad nauseum) with real Chritianity. They are organizations created by men (ordinary humans) to coordinate resources, dictate policies, create interpretations, amass political advantage, etc. The Church (which did not exist before Christ) was not a political organization, but a group of fellow believers who congregated together on occassion to worship God and Christ and study and uplift each other. The affore mentioned organizations in most cases) were created to take advantage of those congregations.
According to the bible, wasn't the church founded by Jesus? Didn't he appoint Saint Peter as his successor? "You are the rock on which I shall found my church" (or something along those lines.)

[wrydolphin]

my main problem is that if god exists, why has he left all this evidence for us to find that points away from the bible??? Redshift supports the big bang theory, genetics supports evolution. Carbon Dating supports the premise that the universe is billions of years old.

Why would God leave all this evidence for us to find if it leads away from him? Or is he trying to trick us, in which case why is he trying to trick us. If its a test, is it a test we are meant to pass or a test we are meant to fail? The existence of God answers all tough questions - but why is this desirable?

That's an easy one to answer. God didn't write the Bible.. people did. People who have an imperfect understanding of the devine. And even if the Bible were devinely impsired, which in part I do believe, it is still filtered through people. If the same text were written today, it would be written with today's understanding of the world. Two thousand years from now, people would be sitting around saying, oh its wrong because now we know how cells were formed and we can do it in the lab, therefore there is no God. Its not a logical arguement when you really look at it.

[holyheadjch]

That's an easy one to answer. God didn't write the Bible.. people did. People who have an imperfect understanding of the devine. And even if the Bible were devinely impsired, which in part I do believe, it is still filtered through people. If the same text were written today, it would be written with today's understanding of the world. Two thousand years from now, people would be sitting around saying, oh its wrong because now we know how cells were formed and we can do it in the lab, therefore there is no God. Its not a logical arguement when you really look at it.
well you see this would make sense, its a shame that people are so keen to preserve the literal intent rather than to look for the meaning beneath the context.

[Strafio]

By church he meant people who believed in him, not necessarily an organisation.

[Johnno]

By church he meant people who believed in him, not necessarily an organisation.So that is your interpretation of what he meant?

[Strafio]

Sort of. :)
I think that's what church originally meant and then the use of the word gradually evolved to describe the organisations. So a church is technically the people of a faith rather than it's leaders and buildings.

But yes, like every other meaning I have with words it is an interpretation. :)

[b2bomber]

The Bible says your body is a temple. Even Christ stated this "Destroy THIS temple and in 3 days I will build it up" The Jews thought he meant the synagogue which took several years to build, but He was speaking of His body.

The people of a faith, and the bulding itself is a church.

[Topher]

As for miracles as proof; you must first believe before the evidence becomes proof. God will not prove Himself to anyone (since Christ) without faith as the first action. Why? I'll ask Him when I get there. (Having said that last statement, you can now all rest comfortably in the assurance that I am just another whacko and go on living your life in blissful ignorance to what I see as abvious) :D
If you have to believe before the evidence becomes apparent then it defeats the point of the evidence.

It's Catch-22. I will not believe in something without any reason to do so, yet i cannot get this 'reason' untill i believe. :rolleyes:

What sort of belief system requires you to believe before having reason to so. (that in itself says a lot). Prehaps one where there is no evidence to cause you to believe because if there was, thats the way it would be.

[HandandFoot]

According to the bible, wasn't the church founded by Jesus? Didn't he appoint Saint Peter as his successor? "You are the rock on which I shall found my church" (or something along those lines.)
Actually, if you read it more carefully, Christ asks Peter "But whom say ye that I am?" th which he replies "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." and Christ says "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " The Catholic church claims that Christ meant that Peter was to be the foundation (rock) of the church, (Peter in Greek is Petros = stone but Christ and Peter didn't speak Greek!) but Christ was refering to Peter's reply "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That is the foundation of the Christian religion. The proof of this is elsewhere in the Bible where Christ is refered to as the "Chief cornerstone" which is what they called the foundation. Incidentally, that interpretation is the justification for the Pope since they claim that Peter was the first Pope.

By church he meant people who believed in him, not necessarily an organisation.
Absolutely correct.
If you have to believe before the evidence becomes apparent then it defeats the point of the evidence.
Not really. If you were a fabulously rich bachelor looking for a wife, would you want to marry a woman without first knowing if she really loved you versus loving your wealth? This is not a direct simile but the sentiment is similar. God wants us to love Him without having to prove it. Once we show Him we love him, he rewards us. Those rewards are a good part of the evidence.

It's Catch-22. I will not believe in something without any reason to do so, yet i cannot get this 'reason' untill i believe.
First, there are reasons to do so but they may have never been presented to you (I would do so now but I would be proselytizing and I would probably create undo stress to many members and be flamed unmercifully). Second, we do it all the time! Have you ever quit one job to take another. We quit the one because we have faith in the new employer to live up to his word. We date people in the hopes of getting something in return (whether that be love, sex, or just a good time). etc.

What sort of belief system requires you to believe before having reason to so. (that in itself says a lot). Prehaps one where there is no evidence to cause you to believe because if there was, thats the way it would be.
Ummm... Which ones do NOT? I guess that depends on what you call a good reason!

[tbubb1]

God wants us to love Him without having to prove it. Once we show Him we love him, he rewards us. Those rewards are a good part of the evidence.

^yep.

Though He shows us He loves us before we love Him as well, through things we typically don't recognize.

[BendzR]

Can someone please give me an example of Love that they have received from God ? I fail to understand this.

(not mocking. serious post)

[Sparkle]

Can someone please give me an example of Love that they have received from God ? I fail to understand this.

(not mocking. serious post)

If we are talking about Christianity. Errrmmm. Jesus Christ dying for us? That's an example of love that affects us today. That and a good, sure feeling of where you're heading in life ( which from after talking to a lot of people I'm around, is sort of rare ) is an example of love to me also. And little thing along the path here and there.

[HandandFoot]

Can someone please give me an example of Love that they have received from God ? I fail to understand this.
I was not born into a Christian family. In fact, my family remains quit agnostic except my sister who is a pantheist! Before I knew Christ, I led a hard life, but always managed to find food and shelter, often through the hands of strangers. What I now call God's blessings in my life, were nothing more than conspicuous timely good fortune. I guess as a non-believer, you can write off repeated coincidence as nothing more than that.

After I accepted Christ, my life turned around in greater ways. Some examples. When I needed money (not wanted, NEEDED) I always found it. in fact, at one point when I needed $200 to pay my rent or get tossed out, I got a check from the IRS. Not a regular tax return. I was not expecting it. It was a check with a letter stating that I had made a calculation mistake on my tax return from 2 years before! Ever heard of that happening? It was for $220. I realized that God had provided what I needed, the very day I needed it, and had even given me an extra 10% which I promptly tithed to my church (those of you who don't know about tithe, God expected his people to give 10% of what they earned to be returned which provided for the religeous leaders and the temple. Old Testament stuff that still applies today)

I am now a married man with 3 wonderful children and have never had a need that wasn't supplied since that time.

To those who do not want to believe, my life is just a string of fortunate circumstances and is a testament to my will and self-motivation. But I tell you, I gave control of my life to Christ and God and have never had reason to regret it or even look back.

[BendzR]

Hand&Foot, thanks for the post.

Sparkle, I was talking about personal unique experiences that people interpretate as love from God.

[Socrastein]

HandandFoot:

Your post is appreciated, and the things you describe I think are really the only reasonable evidence/argument I have ever heard for the existence of God. I can definitely understand the strong implication of divine existence one would feel from such events. However I have one question.

If you can derive God's existence from things consistently "working out" for you, can someone similiarly dirive God's non-existence from things consistently "not working out"?

Whenever I hear an atheist use the argument "My life sucks, therefore God doesn't exist", I tell them that's the one of the worst arguments they could possibly make, I tell them that they cannot conclude that God does not exist from the fact that they have bad luck. I'm sure you'd agree. So what's the difference between that, and concluding that God does exist from good luck?

I think that they intuitively sound different, but logically, I think they are on equal footing, which means either both are good arguments, and thus they are contradictory (rendering them bad arguments), or both are non-sequiturs, which means that neither one says anything about God's existence or non-existence.

What are your thoughts?

[pj_goober]

Also how do you balance that with people who do worship god (who are good people and just as worthy as yourself) for whom bad things happen - and people who do not worship god (including many who are immoral, law-breaking *beeps* who are not worthy of devine assistance at all) for whom life is great.

Both of these cases exist, and are (i would expect) as common as the occurance of a worthy, good worshiper for whom good things happen.

I think this is why people believe it is just a co-incidence.

[wrydolphin]

Personally, I always feel God in two places. The awe and wonder I get from studying biology, there is nothing more amazing then watching bacteria just doing what bacteria do when you consider that they are just roving sacs of biochemicals. And the connection that I feel with others. You know how you can feel someone else's emotions or pain? That interconnection leads me towards God and my culture leads me towards Christianity if that makes sense.

[HandandFoot]

If you can derive God's existence from things consistently "working out" for you, can someone similiarly dirive God's non-existence from things consistently "not working out"?

Whenever I hear an atheist use the argument "My life sucks, therefore God doesn't exist", I tell them that's the one of the worst arguments they could possibly make, I tell them that they cannot conclude that God does not exist from the fact that they have bad luck. I'm sure you'd agree. So what's the difference between that, and concluding that God does exist from good luck?

I think that they intuitively sound different, but logically, I think they are on equal footing, which means either both are good arguments, and thus they are contradictory (rendering them bad arguments), or both are non-sequiturs, which means that neither one says anything about God's existence or non-existence.
Tough one indeed! :o First, I would consider perpective and expectation. I say things worked out for me, but my expectations were that I wouldn't eat or have a place to eat. If you dig into what didn't work out for someone else, would it be "I didn't get the car I wanted" or even "I didn't get a car" That was why I made the distinction between what I needed and not what I wanted. Everyone's experience is different. It was never obvious to me until AFTER I was saved. If I had never been in need of so much, I might never have been ready when I had Christ introduced to me! I could have easily been one of those people. I think I had as much or more reason to believe that my life sucked!
This is where everyone gets upset because it would be unfair to not give everyone an equal chance. They're right, but is it God's fault? I believe not since he distinctly requests of Christ's followers to "spread the good news", so it's really my and my fellow Christian's faults that everyone doesn't get that opportunity. This is, of course, no consolation to those who are miserable but we know that not everyone will accept the invitation.

The difference between the two is obvious. You can't prove the non-existance of anything by the lack of evidence! Of course that does nothing for that persons feelings.The justification of my stance is that evidence can be believed or refused, but it remains evidence none the less. If you accept it, it leads you in one path. If you refuse it, you go in another. Contradictory arguments do not negate each other, they are often just different perspectives of the same experience. Your final conclusion is valid in that there is no physical shareable evidence on God's existance that cannot be refuted by even a modestly creative mind. What I find most interesting is that in an effort to refute God's existance, many people will actually be dishonest even with themselves! It's an interesting phenomenon!

[Topher]

The difference between the two is obvious. You can't prove the non-existance of anything by the lack of evidence!
Just as you can't prove the existance of something with lack of evidence, which raises the question: why do people conclude something does exist, namely God, when there is no evidence or reason to turn to him.

The justification of my stance is that evidence can be believed or refused, but it remains evidence none the less. If you accept it, it leads you in one path. If you refuse it, you go in another.
Yes, technically evidence can be refused or believed, but there needs be evidence in the first place in order for it to be accepted or rejected. How can you believe in evidence which doesn’t exist?

The problem with "god evidence" is that it's usually personal, subjective and often illogical, rendering the "evidence" useless for proving anything. Evidence should be testable by anyone and that is the beauty of scientific evidence.

Contradictory arguments do not negate each other, they are often just different perspectives of the same experience. Your final conclusion is valid in that there is no physical shareable evidence on God's existance that cannot be refuted by even a modestly creative mind.
My point exactly. There is no evidence to prove or disprove God, but there is a lot of reason and evidence not to believe in God. That is not proof he doesn’t exist, just that there is not need to refer to him. Occam's Razor applies here.

What I find most interesting is that in an effort to refute God's existance, many people will actually be dishonest even with themselves! It's an interesting phenomenon!
I've never heard of this with people to try to refute God, only when people try to prove God (i can give you a list if you like). In fact, who even tries to refute God because science doesn’t? Science doesn’t attempt to disprove God. The reasons not to believe in God are a consequence of science.

[Socrastein]

Actually, there are plenty of people who try to disprove God. They'll use ridiculous arguments like "My sister died so God can't exist" or "I prayed for X and I didn't get it, therefore God doesn't exist". Those people are morons, and they embarrass me as an atheist.

[Topher]

Actually, there are plenty of people who try to disprove God. They'll use ridiculous arguments like "My sister died so God can't exist" or "I prayed for X and I didn't get it, therefore God doesn't exist". Those people are morons, and they embarrass me as an atheist.
I agree. But are there reputable people whose sole aim is to disprove God. Many people assume that science, specially people like Dawkins, try to disprove God when that's is not their aim.

[pj_goober]

I agree. But are there reputable people whose sole aim is to disprove God. Many people assume that science, specially people like Dawkins, try to disprove God when that's is not their aim.

Thats partially because Darwins work is often used as evidence against god (especially the more literal acceptance of religious texts) and he himself is so vermently anti-religion.

"root of all evil" anyone?

[HandandFoot]

Just as you can't prove the existance of something with lack of evidence, which raises the question: why do people conclude something does exist, namely God, when there is no evidence or reason to turn to him.
This is tedious. OK. You can't prove ANYTHING with a lack of evidence. In fact, you cannot even prove a lack of evidence with a lack of evidence. All you can show is that YOU lack evidence! Someone else may have a preponderance of it! That being said, you are only succeding in showing that YOU lack evidence of God (note, you didn't say physical evidence which I have but you will not accept so don't even bother to ask).

Further, you now interject the word "reason". Different can-of-worms! There are many reasons people want to believe in God, a god, or gods. If there weren't there would be no religions. Ipso facto, reasons exist.


Yes, technically evidence can be refused or believed, but there needs be evidence in the first place in order for it to be accepted or rejected. How can you believe in evidence which doesn’t exist?
Thoroughly tedious! If you reject the evidence, then there is no evidence?

The problem with "god evidence" is that it's usually personal, subjective and often illogical, rendering the "evidence" useless for proving anything. Evidence should be testable by anyone and that is the beauty of scientific evidence.
Painfully tedious! At what point did I ever offer scientific evidence? In fact, I made a point to say that there it didn't apply. The lack of scientific evidence does not mean lack of evidence. There are many people in the world (and a few here) that have tested this evidence and found it to be true. Apparently, you are just not willing to put it to the test.

There is no evidence to prove or disprove God, but there is a lot of reason and evidence not to believe in God. That is not proof he doesn’t exist, just that there is not need to refer to him. Occam's Razor applies here.
Really? Evidence NOT to believe in God? Oh, please do share. I agree however, that there is a great deal of REASON not to believe in God. If He calls you to do things you don't want to do or, worse yet, demands you stop doing things you really like to do. Those are two very big reasons not to believe! I personaly have many more reasons TO believe.

William of Ockham (creator of Ockhams Razor) was a Franciscan Monk who stated that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" (in simpler english) and used to to justify his conclusion that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." which I believe is what I alluded to in my original post. Even the most over extended interpretations of Ockham's Razor (or Occam if you like) do not state that a theory is WRONG if it's explaination is too complex, merely that the simpler tends to be the BETTER explaination.

Even Stephen Hawking did not discount the posibility of a higher being. He stated that "such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed." This merely means that Hawking found it easier to explain the universe without explaining the non-interaction of a "supernatural being" observer" which does NOT interpret as God the creator.

I've never heard of this with people to try to refute God, only when people try to prove God (i can give you a list if you like). In fact, who even tries to refute God because science doesn’t? Science doesn’t attempt to disprove God. The reasons not to believe in God are a consequence of science.
History is replete with liars. Many of them religious leaders. That is an unfortunate statement that applies to all mankind. Why should religious people be any different? My religion calls for me to never lie. Trust me, I am not perfect. Nor is my religion the only one. Even science is full of liars! Some scientists espouse evolution as FACT when the evidence only makes it a compelling theory (one that I am not compelled to believe).

Science HAS tried to prove the non-existance of God and has failed. They were wise to give up that line of thought. Even today though, Creationism is dismissed as nonsensical merely on the grounds of it's religious affiliations or overtones! How rediculous! Mankind has "created" more organisms that it can find organisms that spontaneously evolve! Note: Mutations are NOT evolution, merely evidence of natural selection or used as an example of possible means of evolution. (A very long argument could start here, but I suggest you research this on your own and bring it up in the appropriate forum). Science has created new organisms by modifying DNA. Granted, they are very simple ones (on the scale of bacteria) but none the less, there is proof for the possibility of creation.

In conclusion, do not confuse "evidence" with "reasons" (or more likely, "excuses" :D ). They are not the same thing. You cannot substitute them and maintain a valid argument.

[Topher]

This is tedious. OK. You can't prove ANYTHING with a lack of evidence. In fact, you cannot even prove a lack of evidence with a lack of evidence. All you can show is that YOU lack evidence! Someone else may have a preponderance of it! That being said, you are only succeding in showing that YOU lack evidence of God (note, you didn't say physical evidence which I have but you will not accept so don't even bother to ask).

Further, you now interject the word "reason". Different can-of-worms! There are many reasons people want to believe in God, a god, or gods. If there weren't there would be no religions. Ipso facto, reasons exist.
So why do you believe in something so strongly (i.e. God) without evidence? Science dosn't try to disprove God, just show that there is no reason to believe in him, so the lack of evidence of his existence dosn't matter from our side. Your side on the other hand proclaim a God dispite the lack of evidence.

As i said, the problem with faith and religion is that the evidence is personal and subjective which doesn’t really make it evidence at all. For evidence to mean anything it must be proven and be testable.

So what evidence is there for God? Please understand that the Bible is a man made book and therefore isn’t evidence for the supernatural. Personal “experiences” are not real evidence as they are not verifiable. Evidence needs to be objective, which means the results would be consistent regardless of personal opinion.

Thoroughly tedious! If you reject the evidence, then there is no evidence?
No at all. Evidence should be objective, so even if you reject it, the evidence still stands. This is the problem with evidence for God, is that it only means anything if you believe in it. “Evidence” which requires you to believe beforehand is not evidence. The whole point of evidence is to not require belief or faith.

Painfully tedious! At what point did I ever offer scientific evidence? In fact, I made a point to say that there it didn't apply. The lack of scientific evidence does not mean lack of evidence. There are many people in the world (and a few here) that have tested this evidence and found it to be true. Apparently, you are just not willing to put it to the test.
Tedious? Evidence for God is person, subjective, often fallacious and requires belief beforehand. That is far from tedious. It renders the evidence useless. The scientific method is the most consistent method of testing and proving something so therefore if something is to be universally accepted this is the best way of proving it.

So what evidence has been tested and by whom? And what was the method of testing.

Really? Evidence NOT to believe in God? Oh, please do share. I agree however, that there is a great deal of REASON not to believe in God. If He calls you to do things you don't want to do or, worse yet, demands you stop doing things you really like to do. Those are two very big reasons not to believe! I personaly have many more reasons TO believe.
The evidence and reason not to believe in God is science… evolution/biology, cosmology, physics etc. The world can be credibly explained via science without the need of invoking the supernatural.

If you want explanations for the world and universe God doesn’t provide it. “God did it” doesn’t explain anything. It actually raises more questions which means you’re therefore still left with the original questions, and completely unnecessary new questions.

But please share the reason you have to believe in God.

History is replete with liars. Many of them religious leaders. That is an unfortunate statement that applies to all mankind. Why should religious people be any different? My religion calls for me to never lie. Trust me, I am not perfect. Nor is my religion the only one. Even science is full of liars! Some scientists espouse evolution as FACT when the evidence only makes it a compelling theory (one that I am not compelled to believe).
True, people in science have tried to mislead but due to the peer review process these frauds are usually found out before long. Recent example was the Korean doctor who claimed he had cloned an embryo or something.

On the other hand there are tons of religious people and sources that blatantly mislead and flat out lie. These people are often commended by fellow misleaders, not criticized. Science has no problem in bringing down a fake. In fact, scientists would like nothing more than to be the person to refute major claims made by another scientist.

Some evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, claim evolution is as good as a fact because of the overwhelming evidence supporting it/facts within it, and the fact no one has discredited it.

Note: Mutations are NOT evolution, merely evidence of natural selection or used as an example of possible means of evolution. (A very long argument could start here, but I suggest you research this on your own and bring it up
Natural selection is evolutions. Mutation is evolution. This proves you no nothing of even the most basic elements of evolution. I suggest you do some research. :rolleyes:

[Judderman]

The evidence and reason not to believe in God is science… evolution/biology, cosmology, physics etc. The world can be credibly explained via science without the need of invoking the supernatural.

If you want explanations for the world and universe God doesn’t provide it. “God did it” doesn’t explain anything. It actually raises more questions which means you’re therefore still left with the original questions, and completely unnecessary new questions.


Sorry to jump in at such a late stage, but I believe this is to be grossly overstating.

Science cannot credibly explain the universe any more than a religious "god" version can. Various elements of science contradict each other.

I am led to believe that there are elements of quantuum physics that disprove newtonian physics, we can still see that both theories are "true". I recall from my study of chemistry that there are areas around a nucleus of an atom where you are more likely to find an electron than others. At this particular stage of learning I interpreted this as "we know electrons exist by what they do, but we can't pin point one to show you". Not too dissimilar to what others may claim about a god.

Science and religion have the same problem. Once you have answered one question, you are immeadiately presented with a new one, "Why?" Neither "side" can give a difinative answer to our questions as the boundries are forever changing.

The concept that an invisible, omnipresent being or force is the cause of all the daily goings on is no more credable than the concept that a collection of invisible, omnipresent particles are to blame.

Both science and religion are trying to balance what is "true" from what is "not true". Both get caught out. With all of science's "evidence" things still occur which can not be explained, only theorised about. Does this mean that they don't exist? With all of religion's faith things still occur which question that faith. Does that mean that the root of the faith does not exist?

Each has its limitations.

I have had a headache soothed away by taking pills, I've had a headache soothed away by someone waving their hands around my head. Point is both soothed away my headache. Does it matter if we don't know why something works, only that it does?

[Angelus]

The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.
The question shouldnt be "does god exist?" it should be "do people need god?"
I personally dont think god exist as the almighty being in the bible but thats just me. some people truly believe that god exists. However i think that people need god. God can come in many forms... some people call him allah while others say god is a symbol of humanity or an image of goodness. some people substitute god as an answer for the questions that cannot be answered by science. there are many different angles from which u can look at god. some religious.. others are physocological, philosophical or spiritual....its upto the person to decide because gods existence will never be a fact. it will always remain a question.

[thepunisher]

As for miracles as proof; you must first believe before the evidence becomes proof. God will not prove Himself to anyone (since Christ) without faith as the first action. Why? I'll ask Him when I get there. (Having said that last statement, you can now all rest comfortably in the assurance that I am just another whacko and go on living your life in blissful ignorance to what I see as abvious) :D

HandandFoot, tell me something, if god is supposed to be there for
ALL living things on this planet, all ppl why should he have to prove himself to anyone at all ? Or we have to prove himself to him ? Sorry to say this, but its not US who have to prove we have faith in him but, if you want to take it down that route, god having to prove himself to all of us. Why should I have faith in someone or something that goes around killing ppl at random through natural disasters, makes sure there is a difference between rich and poor on this planet and that only the ppl of faith apparently have the 'luck' you seem to describe in your other post ? I might as well simply believe in the PM of my country..at least with him I see the results.

Christian

[Topher]

Science cannot credibly explain the universe any more than a religious "god" version can.
Both answer the question. But science explains things, while providing evidence. “Goddidit” on the other hand doesn’t explain anything other than raise more questions

Various elements of science contradict each other.
Such as?

With all of science's "evidence" things still occur which can not be explained, only theorised about. Does this mean that they don't exist? With all of religion's faith things still occur which question that faith.
Science has tons of evidence, but when it cannot explain something it don’t jump to premature conclusions, which is exactly what the religious groups do.

Science cannot explain so-and-so… therefore, God did it. How pathetic is that. :rolleyes:

Just because something cannot be currently explained, doesn’t mean we will never answer it. Science finds new information all the time.

On the other hand, there is no credible evidence to support religious claims. None! The supposed “gaps” in science is their only real “evidence” but it’s completely irrelevant. First of all, of course there is “gaps” in science. It’s on going and it’s absurd to think we can just pack our bags and leave, and claim to have all the answers, that we’ve “finished”. Secondly, evidence is not “gaps” in opposing explanations. Even if evolutions was wrong, it wouldn’t make creationism correct by default.

It seems the religious people want closure to the questions about the universe and life and there not prepare to wait. God might provide an “explanation” or sorts, but it doesn’t actually answer anything.

[Socrastein]

Handandfoot:

Do you have any verifiable, objective evidence that God exists? Do you have a logically sound argument that God exists? If not, you have nothing. It's that simple.

So if you please, prove your case.

And a few points to remember:

Scientific theories are facts, unless of course you redefine what fact means, but that would be silly.

Creationism is dismissed because it's an illogical inference and it has no explanatory power whatsoever. Religious overtones have nothing to do with it.

You should avoid the ad hominem fallacy of poisoning the well. That's when you try to refute a claim by showing that the claimant has made it with irrational motives. That crap about atheists wanting excuses to avoid God's command or judgement is fallacious, presumptious, and petty.

If nothing can be proven with lack of evidence, nothing can be proven with evidence either, unless you inconistently apply your definition of "proof".

Any change in allele frequency in a population is evolution, by definition. Surely you'd know this if you knew anything about evolution, so the fact that you don't know this shows you don't know anything about evolution.

Now again, if you don't mind, prove that God exists. I think the phrase is "put up or shut up", but that's a little bit blunt.

[Socrastein]

Science cannot credibly explain the universe any more than a religious "god" version can.

Please elaborate on your use of the phrase "credibly explain". I'm curious what you mean by that. By credibly explain, I would think you'd mean "explain with logical consistency, verifiable evidence, unfalsified predictions, and more parsimoniously than any competing explanation". Obviously you don't mean that, so what do you mean?

QM does not contradict Newtonian mechanics by the way. Relativity fills in the holes that Newtonian mechanics has at relativistic speeds. Quantum mechanics fills in the holes that Relativity has at the quantum level. They pick up eachother's slack when things get complicated, nothing more.

[HandandFoot]

The reason I foind these discussions so tedious is the necessity to repeat myself because some of you just do not READ what I say.

Case in point. I have already ceded the point that God is not provable by way of reasoning. There is no scientific evidence that you would deam repeatable and verifiable. In fact, I didn't need to cede the point, I never MADE the point to the contrary. I said there was evidence. I even went so far as to say "subjective evidence". Further, it is not my purpose in life to "convince" you of God's existance, merely to present Him. It is between you and Him to work out the details. If you reject Him, He rejects you! Very simple. What does that mean to you? I can't say. I have no clue what He would have planned for you.

There is only one point when either of us will know for fact whether or not God exists, and that's when we die. Hardly an equitable discussion closer! :D If you are correct that He does not exist, I will have wasted my life being kind to everyone (even when I didn't want to be). I will have wasted many Sunday mornings listening to uplifting messages and being in the comapny of some other very nice (sometimes unwillingly) people. I will have wasted countless hours taking care of people that others would not.

Conversly, If I am correct, well, you've probably heard it all before...

Forget the evidential part of God's existance. If you're looking for concrete evidence, you'll never find it. Consider the reasons to believe. There is no good reason not to consider an idea. Only to dismiss it as part of a specific argument.

While scientists rarely try to "prove God does not exist" (they would be foolish to try because of the sheer number of believers of several faiths that would revolt against them) they employ other deceptive tactics employed by people wishing to make their point. The most obvious is by not even allowing discussion of Him as a cause or influence in any scietific debate. The other is to attempt to convince others that "religeous folk" are all stupid or clueless and not worthy of serious consideration. "You are religeous, therefore you are wrong". Most tedious indeed.

By the way: Theory (scientific or otherwise) is an idea which is concluded to be true by virtue of a preponderance of evidence and arrived at by deductive reasoning within the realm of all available evidence. Evidence to the contrary is overruled by reason of anomoly or unforseen complication which will be later explained and is is assumed will also support the theory at that time.

Fact occurs when ALL contrary evidence is shown to support the theory and the idea can be reproduced with consistant results over all aspects of the idea. By time constraints alone, evolution will never be made fact. In fact, if science tries to prove evolution using gentic manipulation, it will in fact be creating the strongest evidence toward creationism! (by the way, they have already done so).

So while I do not have the in-depth scientific knowledge to argue all points, I have enough of a scientific mind to consider your point. But know this; you cannot shake my faith! My unobjective, personal, unreproducable evidence of God is so great (in my mind) that science only makes me question scientists.

Did you ever wonder why electrons flow from negative to positive? Kinda counter-intuitive, isn't it? Since electricity was studied in-depth since the 18th century, it was theorized that electricity flowed from positive to negative. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that electrons were shown to move in the oposite direction! And even more recently that electrons are not the only charged particles that can flow in a conductor!

Time heals all theories. Some get proved correct, some get proved wrong.

[thepunisher]

I said there was evidence. I even went so far as to say "subjective evidence". Further, it is not my purpose in life to "convince" you of God's existance, merely to present Him. It is between you and Him to work out the details. If you reject Him, He rejects you! Very simple. What does that mean to you? I can't say. I have no clue what He would have planned for you.

Okay HandandFoot, question for you: What gives you evidence that god will reject those that do not believe him ? Or have faith in him ? Where did you come up with this statement ? Who told you this ? Second: I think there is plenty of evidence in this World that god doesn't have much to do with anything at all. There is more ppl homeless, nearly starving to death or in wars on this planet than you would believe. And I can imagine most of these ppl believe or have faith in some sort of god...may it be god, allah or whatever. So tell me preacher man (sorry to use this phrase but thats the way you sound and this is one reason I'm not a fan of religion)what makes you the expert on who god picks and whom he doesn't ? Why should he choose you above 5 billion other ppl ?


The most obvious is by not even allowing discussion of Him as a cause or influence in any scietific debate. The other is to attempt to convince others that "religeous folk" are all stupid or clueless and not worthy of serious consideration. "You are religeous, therefore you are wrong". Most tedious indeed.

Actually HandandFoot, its often the other way around. Its the church that in the past and even now interferes when it comes to things scientific. Its more:"if you are a man of science you are definitley wrong." I can quote you two famous examples that stuck with the church but actually where not in favour of it: one was Leonardo da Vinci, the other Martin Luther. And just to point out, Leonardo da Vinci was a scientist and inventor.


So while I do not have the in-depth scientific knowledge to argue all points, I have enough of a scientific mind to consider your point. But know this; you cannot shake my faith! My unobjective, personal, unreproducable evidence of God is so great (in my mind) that science only makes me question scientists.

I don't think anyone on here wants to shake your faith at all HandandFoot. Not sure if it was you who answered one of my previous posts but if it was it is you who is trying to convince all atheists of making a mistake. Why ? Why is it a mistake not to have faith in god ? Like you said, in the end we will all find out if he does exist or not, won't we ? So why bother trying to convince us all now. Especially since you yourself have no evidence at all he does exist.

Christian

[tbubb1]

Why argue whether or not God exists?
It's not going to prove anything -- if you could someone would have proven it a long time ago and everyone would believe in God.
If you could prove He doesn't exist then no one would believe in God now -- save some desperate people who don't understand the evidence or whatever.
This arguement isn't going anywhere.

Christian's aren't called to prove whether or not God exists.

And why should God prove Himself to us?

[BendzR]

save some desperate people who don't understand the evidence or whatever.

Oh, like Creationists ?


And why should God prove Himself to us?

Because, before you demand someone kiss your ass - or you destroy them with ur love by sending them to hell for infinite time - you might want to actually convince them that you are real. If you don't, that would be kind of mean.

And we all know how God does not display any meanness in the history of mankind. All those plagues, famine, disease, etc is his way of showing his love.

...actually now I think about it. That makes perfect sense that God doesn't prove himself. :eek:

[Topher]

Case in point. I have already ceded the point that God is not provable by way of reasoning. There is no scientific evidence that you would deam repeatable and verifiable. In fact, I didn't need to cede the point, I never MADE the point to the contrary. I said there was evidence. I even went so far as to say "subjective evidence".
That’s the point. Evidence must be objective. Subjective evidence is essentially useless evidence. If we accept subjective evidence as good evidence we’d be in a right mess. Anyone would be able to proclaim “evidence” and there would be no means of verifying it.

If you reject Him, He rejects you! Very simple. What does that mean to you? I can't say. I have no clue what He would have planned for you.
As someone said before on another thread. Any God that judges a person on their blind faith in him, rather than on character is not any God I’m going to worship.

If you are correct that He does not exist, I will have wasted my life being kind to everyone (even when I didn't want to be).
Surly it is more moral to do good for its own sake, than out of fear of eternal punishment.

So, if you discovered God doesn’t exist, you’d feel no need to be moral.

Time heals all theories. Some get proved correct, some get proved wrong.
Yes, and evolution has endured over 100 years of people trying to disprove it. The fact it comes out even stronger each time says a lot.

[tbubb1]

If you reject Him, He rejects you!

Nonononononononoo.

If you reject Him, you're rejecting Him. God never rejects you, that's the whole point. Ever forgiving, ever loving.

You go to Hell because you choose to.

Granted, you're not saying "Yea, I choose to go to Hell", it's more of a "Yea, I choose to live for myself."

God does not reject you.

[Omicron]

It is irrational to hold these three beliefs at the same time:

1) God is all loving
2) God is all powerful
3) Evil exists in the world

Go figure.

[thepunisher]

Nonononononononoo.

If you reject Him, you're rejecting Him. God never rejects you, that's the whole point. Ever forgiving, ever loving.

You go to Hell because you choose to.

God does not reject you.

Okay, lets play a bit with logic, shall we ? If I choose to reject god I go to
hell , right ? But god doesn't actually reject me so tell me pretendingtodie, if he isn't rejecting me why should he make absolutley sure I go to hell ? Doesn't that go against his nature of being a loving being ? And by the way, if I don't actually believe in god that would logically also mean (and this is where some of you ppl with christian faith trip up)I also don't believe in hell...meaning logically I don't go their either. Its only someone who before believed in god and decides to turn against him that goes to hell. Someone who never made that choice therefore won't. Unless I'm missing something here.

Christian

[BendzR]

If rejecting God has a direct result of something we should fear, the motivation to not reject God is fear.

So you choose to accept not-having-fear and pretend you're accepting God.

Surely, if I put a gun to a girls head, and say "YOU BETTER LOVE ME OR ELSE" and out of fear she responds by convincingly loving me (even though it is fear driven) I would not feel better about myself.

That is not accepting me. That is fearing me.

If God really wanted to make it fair, which I would have imagined a God-figure would. Then he would never have mentioned anything about Hell. If he wants us to fear him rather than really accept him (which is logically true based on the 'facts') then he does not deserve real acceptance because he's sadistic. The exact opposite of love.

So, conclusion. I would say to try make someone 'love' you via fear, is the most evil and non-loving thing one could do.

[wrydolphin]

It is irrational to hold these three beliefs at the same time:

1) God is all loving
2) God is all powerful
3) Evil exists in the world

Go figure.

Not really, not when you factor in regular old humanity, which seems to have cornered the market on being evil jerks.

The point of that we choose to do good or evil. Every religion points this choice out, even Buddism.

[BendzR]

If God is all powerful and all loving, then humanity should be unable to do any evil, since they fall in the universe which is created by an all powerful and all loving being.

Simply pointing out the source of bad things that happen does not refute the point that Omicron was illustrating.

The only way evil can be blamed on something else and say "God is not at fault regarding his (lack of) love for the universe" is if you suggest he is not all powerful and omnipotent.

[Richardni]

i havent read all of the posts, so sorry if anyone has said this already, but.
This is not a bible contradiction, the bible said he does, you are saying he dose not.
to be a bible contradiction, the bible would have to say he does extist, then say he dose not.

[Socrastein]

That was already addressed Richardni.

[Richardni]

sorry, i wasn't prepared to wade through 80 odd posts to find out,
i just went streight for the odvious.

[Socrastein]

Perfectly understandable. I'll repeat what I said before - I'm not speaking of internal contradictions in the Bible, I'm speaking of contradictions between what the Bible says, and what is actually true: this is still a contradiction. This thread wasn't about the Bible contradicting itself, there's other threads on that, this thread was about the Bible blatantly contradicting reality.

[Moosey]

The bit in the bible that I always had most trouble with was the bit with the guy and the talking horse. Where he'd do something stupid and he had this horse (seriously) that would tell him what to do (I think 'cos maybe it was a miracle horse or something) but no-one would believe it was really the horse that could talk (I mean, I think it was God that made the horse, so that's why it could talk). So anyway, there's this guy, oh and he also really fancied his neighbour but was a bit too awkward to know what to say so he got advice from the miracle horse but it always kinda went wrong and he'd look silly. I think it was a parable about...um...learning humility or something.

[medi]

The bit in the bible that I always had most trouble with was the bit with the guy and the talking horse. Where he'd do something stupid and he had this horse (seriously) that would tell him what to do (I think 'cos maybe it was a miracle horse or something) but no-one would believe it was really the horse that could talk (I mean, I think it was God that made the horse, so that's why it could talk). So anyway, there's this guy, oh and he also really fancied his neighbour but was a bit too awkward to know what to say so he got advice from the miracle horse but it always kinda went wrong and he'd look silly. I think it was a parable about...um...learning humility or something.


STOP IT!!!! :D :D :D :D :cry:


http://www.cfhf.net/lyrics/images/ed-a.jpg

[Omicron]

The point of that we choose to do good or evil. Every religion points this choice out, even Buddism.
Our free will in the matter of good and evil is often cited by theists as an explanation of the evil in the world. They point out that a world with free will and some degree of evil would be better than a world with no free will but complete goodness. After all, it would be boring if we were all just automata, running around and doing nothing but good all day with our lack of choice in the matter.

If we want to take the premise that we possess free will as true (which is another argument altogether), it would seem to explain evil in the world as a repercussion of bad human behaviour. But still, would an all-powerful, all-loving god really need to create a world with so much evil and suffering? Or, being all-powerful, could he not have created us with a better moral conscience, thereby leaving us the choice between good and evil, but having us know that evil is not a desirable outcome? And what of natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes and disease? Thousands and thousands of people die of natural disasters each year, and no person is responsible for that.

[Topher]

The point of that we choose to do good or evil. Every religion points this choice out, even Buddism.
The point of that we choose to do good or evil. Every religion points this choice out, even Buddism.
Define good and evil….. you can't, they’re subjective.

Yes, there are some things we universally accept as 'evil' such as killing (with exceptions) or rape and 'good' such as kindness, caring etc but other than that it depends of culture, upbringing etc.

Many thing are viewed as evil to a Christian - abortion, sex before marriage, homosexuality etc, yet not to non-religious people or society in general. So I may choose to do something, which only a Christian deems evil/wrong.

[Judderman]

Both answer the question. But science explains things, while providing evidence. “Goddidit” on the other hand doesn’t explain anything other than raise more questions

Both raise one question, "Why?". If science didn't then it would be stagnent. If religion didn't then humans would be stagnent.


Such as? I believe there is a mathematical formula that proves that 2+2 does not equal 4.


Science has tons of evidence, but when it cannot explain something it don’t jump to premature conclusions, which is exactly what the religious groups do. You seem to assume that a person who is religious is some how irrational?

Science cannot explain so-and-so… therefore, God did it. How pathetic is that. :rolleyes:Does that really matter? Surely when a scientist is theorising possibilities then "god" is a possibility, just not a likely one.

Just because something cannot be currently explained, doesn’t mean we will never answer it. Science finds new information all the time.

On the other hand, there is no credible evidence to support religious claims. None! The supposed “gaps” in science is their only real “evidence” but it’s completely irrelevant. First of all, of course there is “gaps” in science. It’s on going and it’s absurd to think we can just pack our bags and leave, and claim to have all the answers, that we’ve “finished”. Secondly, evidence is not “gaps” in opposing explanations. Even if evolutions was wrong, it wouldn’t make creationism correct by default. How does electricity work? Movement of electrons? Show me an electron. Show me how it moves and tell me why it moves in the way it does. In most cases you can only show something exists by showing how it reacts with the world around it. The same as "god".

It seems the religious people want closure to the questions about the universe and life and there not prepare to wait. God might provide an “explanation” or sorts, but it doesn’t actually answer anything.Fair enough point, but tell me this, how does knowing that a molecule is made up different atoms, which are in turn made of different particals affect your daily life?

What I'm really trying to point out is that you are sounding very much like those you would dipose.

[Judderman]

Please elaborate on your use of the phrase "credibly explain". I'm curious what you mean by that. By credibly explain, I would think you'd mean "explain with logical consistency, verifiable evidence, unfalsified predictions, and more parsimoniously than any competing explanation". Obviously you don't mean that, so what do you mean? By credibly I mean:

believably (adv.)
Realistically
Convincingly
Plausibly

This is the wonderful thing about the human condition. What we believe, what we are convinced by, what we find plausible. To a man of science, scientific explanations are the order of the day. To a man of god, religious explanations are the order of the day.

Try a simple experiment with a group of 10 friends. If 9 of you start telling the 1 information that is obviously wrong, see how long it is that the 1 begins to agree with the 9.

A case in point is the Boxing Day Tsunami. Scientists can show us pictures of what causes an earthquake and how that then causes a tsunami and why there might be more than one. They can use this to try and predict these events and give warnings to populated areas. Can they stop it happening? No, just limit the damage.

After the tsunami a journalist went around the affected areas and spoke to various people. One question was did they believe "god" had anything to do with it. A small group of tribal peoples on small islands gave this explanation. The World Tree shook and caused the land and the sea to fight over their borders. We saw the sea rush over the land, but it was pushed back by the spirits of the forest. Once the fight ended we returned from the hills. It was believed that these "backward" people, with no scientific method of warning of the tsunami, would have been wiped out. They all survived.

The fundamental thing that one should look at it is, IMO, is this information practical to my life?

QM does not contradict Newtonian mechanics by the way. Relativity fills in the holes that Newtonian mechanics has at relativistic speeds. Quantum mechanics fills in the holes that Relativity has at the quantum level. They pick up each other’s slack when things get complicated, nothing more. Thanks for clarifying.

[medi]

I believe there is a mathematical formula that proves that 2+2 does not equal 4.


No



Fair enough point, but tell me this, how does knowing that a molecule is made up different atoms, which are in turn made of different particals affect your daily life?



Since such knowledge was essential in the development of the transistor, possibly the most significant discovery to mankind after how to make fire, I'd say it affects everyone's daily life.

[Topher]

Both raise one question, "Why?". If science didn't then it would be stagnent. If religion didn't then humans would be stagnent.
I don’t care why. I doubt it would affect my life in any way. This seems to be the thing religious people want most – a reason for their existence. I don’t need religion to make my life mean something. I can give my life reason without appealing to a supreme being. But even if there was a creator, it still wouldn’t answer the “why” you guys are looking for.

It’s also worth mentioning that we humans are not the goal of evolution, we’re not special… just one branch of the tree, albeit were the current apex of life. Should it be possible to ‘replay’ evolution from the beginning, things would probably be a lot different; human might not even exist!

I believe there is a mathematical formula that proves that 2+2 does not equal 4.
That’s irrelevant. There might be an alternative mathematical formula for something, but it’s doesn’t deny the formula of 2+2=4.

You said “Various elements of science contradict each other” so show me an established scientific idea/theory which contradicts itself.

You seem to assume that a person who is religious is some how irrational?
Yes, but that’s not an assumption, it’s an observation. And by irrational I mean specifically about science/religion/faith etc. A religious person might be completely rational about areas which don’t ‘invade’ on their faith.

Arguments for religion/God are not logical or rational. They believe something, just because they believe it, which is fine, as long as they are honest with themselves.

Of course, you can disprove this by making a logical, rational argument for God.

Does that really matter? Surely when a scientist is theorising possibilities then "god" is a possibility, just not a likely one.
Yes, it does matter. The very argument for Intelligent Design is: “life is to complex, therefore, it was created.” Even if one argument was disproved for any reason, it does not make apposing arguments correct my default, especially when they don’t even ask if their argument can even explain the issue. (By the way, their argument is fallacious anyway because life started out at primeval simplicity, and evolved into a more complex state. Yes, it’s hard to believe life started out exactly as it exist today [i.e. complex], buts that the point, it didn’t)

Also, science doesn’t invoke the metaphysical so God is irrelevant to science. It’s doesn’t explain anything, therefore there is not need to appeal to it.

How does electricity work? Movement of electrons? Show me an electron. Show me how it moves and tell me why it moves in the way it does. In most cases you can only show something exists by showing how it reacts with the world around it. The same as "god".
No, it’s not, “the same as god.” Science is empirical, it needs to be testable. God, being metaphysical, is not testable. You say you can show God exists by showing how it reacts to the world around it. Show me how you can do this?

A certain phenomena might exist, but claiming God as the cause of it is a presumption, something you must not do. You can speculate, but never set out with specifics and aims (such as God) in sight. Previous actions attributed to God such as thunder/earthquakes and whatnot have been shown to be natural phenomena.

Fair enough point, but tell me this, how does knowing that a molecule is made up different atoms, which are in turn made of different particals affect your daily life?

What I'm really trying to point out is that you are sounding very much like those you would dipose.
How so?

It doesn’t affect my daily life. What’s your point?

Likewise, how does believing in a supernatural being affect your daily life?

[medi]

It doesn’t affect my daily life.

I would contend that it does, in very significant ways. See my reply above.

[thepunisher]

I don’t care why. I doubt it would affect my life in any way. This seems to be the thing religious people want most – a reason for their existence. I don’t need religion to make my life mean something. I can give my life reason without appealing to a supreme being. But even if there was a creator, it still wouldn’t answer the “why” you guys are looking for.

Thanks Homer, that is a good post. I completley agree with your post especially on the above. One thing I never understood is why religious ppl are looking for a reason for their existence and aren't just happy they simply exist. The question of "Why ?" is often asked but do we need answers to everything ? And if you think about it, who are you really living for, yourself or god ? If you can't make your life important enough to live it for yourself whats the point of making yourself a 'slave' to god ? Shouldn't your own life be more important than gods existence ?


Likewise, how does believing in a supernatural being affect your daily life?

I sometimes think believing in a supernatural being helps relieve guilt in ppl of religion. Commit a sin: well do 100 hail marys and everything is okay again. Go commit the next sin. Also, it gives the responsibility in your life to another being , which you can use as excuses if things don't go the way you want. "It didn't happen because god didn't want it to happen !" Also helps relieve you of responsibility if you have committed something nasty: "Well, god made me do it !" And the nastiest thing, if someone doesn't share your belief you can simply tell them that they will be in hell for not having the same faith as you. Because god told you so. Not sure if that is actually a defensive move but its pretty pointless as a person who doesn't believe in god also doesn't believe in hell.

Sorry for my strong views on this but seriously, why make god the center of your life ? Whats the point ?

Christian

[Topher]

I would contend that it does, in very significant ways. See my reply above.
Technically it might, but it dosn't if you get me. :p

[Topher]

Thanks Homer, that is a good post. I completley agree with your post especially on the above. One thing I never understood is why religious ppl are looking for a reason for their existence and aren't just happy they simply exist. The question of "Why ?" is often asked but do we need answers to everything ? And if you think about it, who are you really living for, yourself or god ? If you can't make your life important enough to live it for yourself whats the point of making yourself a 'slave' to god ? Shouldn't your own life be more important than gods existence ?
Something Richard Dawkins said on this C4 show: “Most people won’t even live… because they won’t even be born. We should be happy to just be alive, and make the most of it”

[AZeitung]

Technically it might, but it dosn't if you get me. :p
No, it really, really does, because you wouldn't even be posting to this forum otherwise, and that's not the only thing that would be different. The fact that we know about molecules/atoms/etc. certainly has a huge impact on the world. In fact, I'm pretty sure our technology and medicine would still be at the level of about 1900 if we didn't have that knowledge. Heck, if we didn't know about molecules, we probably wouldn't have some 19th century technology either.

[Topher]

I don't doubt its affect and important, but it's one of those things where, while it does have an effect, you don't think about it.

It like oxygen or gravity, of course it effects our every day life, but it just is, you don’t think about it, so in that sense, it's doesn’t affect our life, even though it technically does.

Hence my point – it dose and it doesn’t. ;)

How does this relate to "God," well, regardless if there is or isn't a creator, i couldn't care less, it wont affect me.

[tekkengod]

I don't understand why this is a debate? no proof, its based on man made assumptions and ideas, and most importantly and in simplest terms:

It is very simple, you believe in something of which there is no existing evidence and is an intangible notion, your belief is irrational

[thepunisher]

I would contend that it does, in very significant ways. See my reply above.

I think Homer is referring to the existence of god not the existence of molecules medi.

Christian

[Strafio]

How does this relate to "God," well, regardless if there is or isn't a creator, i couldn't care less, it wont affect me.
This is kind of how I see it too.
I like what is. How it got to be like these seems almost irrelevant in this perspective. Apart from the possibility of eternal damnation at the end of it... that's a kind of scary thought... I don't think it's possible from a loving God but I'd hate to reach the afterlife and find out I'd gotten it wrong! :D

I think I believe in God but it's not exactly a strong faith. Almost agnostic.
I also know that I'd live my life the same way whether or not he does exist.
If he doesn't exist then I've talked to myself a bit, but I talk to myself anyway. ;) If he does exist then he knows what I believe and why I do so. If he wanted me to believe then he knows what would've convinced me.

It seems he's happy to leave me guessing so guessing is what I'll keep doing. :)

[Judderman]

I don’t care why. I doubt it would affect my life in any way. This seems to be the thing religious people want most – a reason for their existence. I don’t need religion to make my life mean something. I can give my life reason without appealing to a supreme being. But even if there was a creator, it still wouldn’t answer the “why” you guys are looking for.1. Why? 2.Which guys?

It’s also worth mentioning that we humans are not the goal of evolution, we’re not special… just one branch of the tree, albeit were the current apex of life. Should it be possible to ‘replay’ evolution from the beginning, things would probably be a lot different; human might not even exist! I doubt the apex bit, but other than that I agree.


That’s irrelevant. There might be an alternative mathematical formula for something, but it’s doesn’t deny the formula of 2+2=4.

You said “Various elements of science contradict each other” so show me an established scientific idea/theory which contradicts itself. Medi clarified on those. I must stand corrected.


Yes, but that’s not an assumption, it’s an observation. And by irrational I mean specifically about science/religion/faith etc. A religious person might be completely rational about areas which don’t ‘invade’ on their faith.

Arguments for religion/God are not logical or rational. They believe something, just because they believe it, which is fine, as long as they are honest with themselves.

Of course, you can disprove this by making a logical, rational argument for God. Assumption or observation, its still a stereotype. Arguments for "god" are logical, not all of them could be described as rational.


life started out at primeval simplicity, and evolved into a more complex state. Yes, it’s hard to believe life started out exactly as it exist today [i.e. complex], buts that the point, it didn’t) Agreed

No, it’s not, “the same as god.” Science is empirical, it needs to be testable. God, being metaphysical, is not testable. You say you can show God exists by showing how it reacts to the world around it. Show me how you can do this?In exactly the same way you would demonstrate electricity.

A certain phenomena might exist, but claiming God as the cause of it is a presumption, something you must not do. You can speculate, but never set out with specifics and aims (such as God) in sight. Previous actions attributed to God such as thunder/earthquakes and whatnot have been shown to be natural phenomena. As a scientific approach you are right, but the answers can be the same. Don't get so caught up in this word "god". To someone who does not understand "natural phenomena" they could still follow a experimental method and still arrive at a conclusion of something called "god". If a few years doen the line they discover certain aspects of "natural phenomena" then the name of the result could change to "nature". The end result is the same, regardless of what you call it.

You assume everyone has the same idea and concept about what this label "god" is and what it means to them. To me you sound similar to those you would dipose. "Look of course this is real! I can prove it!!"

Btw, at what point did I say I believed in a supernatural being? ;)

[Topher]

Apart from the possibility of eternal damnation at the end of it... that's a kind of scary thought... I don't think it's possible from a loving God but I'd hate to reach the afterlife and find out I'd gotten it wrong! :D
Even if there were a creator, I certainly don’t accept the beliefs of heaven, hell, judgment day, creationism etc, nor that this supposed creator intervenes with life.

My view on any possible creator is similar to a deist creator – one that started the universe, and that’s it. I don’t believe the view that there must be a cause/reason for life as grounds for God. This view simply raises more problems, namely, who created God. At least you don’t get this with a deist god.

[Topher]

1. Why? 2.Which guys?
Sorry I don’t get this? What do you mean?

I doubt the apex bit, but other than that I agree.
Human are the dominant species. End of.

Arguments for "god" are logical, not all of them could be described as rational.
Please evidence that claim, otherwise, you have nothing.

Agreed
So you accept evolution then as what you agreed to was evolution.

In exactly the same way you would demonstrate electricity.
Please elaborate how this would evidence God.

As a scientific approach you are right, but the answers can be the same. Don't get so caught up in this word "god". To someone who does not understand "natural phenomena" they could still follow a experimental method and still arrive at a conclusion of something called "god". If a few years doen the line they discover certain aspects of "natural phenomena" then the name of the result could change to "nature". The end result is the same, regardless of what you call it.
They might arrive at “God,” but they do so without real, if any evidence. Also, how can they arrive at God following an experimental method? Do you have an example of this method?

The end result might not be the same. Technically the occurrence itself might be the same, but by proclaiming God as the cause of it answers nothing. Allow science to explain it gives useful answers that ultimately help mankind.

You assume everyone has the same idea and concept about what this label "god" is and what it means to them. To me you sound similar to those you would dipose. "Look of course this is real! I can prove it!!"
I’ve never tried to disprove God because I can’t. I, along with others just show that it is irrational/illogical to infer God. There is no need to use God as an explanation.

I do however refer to science to explain/prove things as science uses verifiable evidence, logical consistency, parsimony in its arguments etc. Things can be proved, but the best way is using the scientific method.

Btw, at what point did I say I believed in a supernatural being?
When did I infer that you did?

Anyway, what do you believe in then?

[Judderman]

Human are the dominant species. End of. Depends how you would define dominant. I'd vote the viruses and bacillum.

So you accept evolution then as what you agreed to was evolution. Yes I think evolution is a perfectly plausible theory. It doesn't answer the questions of the origins of life, but is a good explination for the diversity of it. Indications of how climatic change can force evolutionary change are quite strong. Still doesn't explain where life originated from. The last theory I heard was that the essential amino acids were delivered on meteors. The gap between this and the simple life you refered to earlier has not been answered as far as I'm aware. Still leaves us with a big "I dunno" answer as far as I can tell, in which case "Goddidit" is just as valid an answer.

They might arrive at “God,” but they do so without real, if any evidence. Also, how can they arrive at God following an experimental method? Do you have an example of this method?

The end result might not be the same. Technically the occurrence itself might be the same, but by proclaiming God as the cause of it answers nothing. Allow science to explain it gives useful answers that ultimately help mankind.Taking the idea of evolution with my comments above, after asking "why?" we end up at, where did the simple life that the rest of life come from? the answer is "i don't know". Our abilities end here (for the time being) so "God" is an answer, this does not, as you have suggested, rule out all other answers. Its abit like "what killed the dinosaurs". some say dramitic climate change over a period of time, where as some say it way a huge meteor. I believe the debate is still raging. In simple terms the answer is "we don't know, but we think it might be "theory" because...". IMO this is no different to inserting "god" as a theory. How many people would subscibe to the theory is a different matter.

I, along with others just show that it is irrational/illogical to infer God.Again irrational does not necassarily mean illogical. There is no need to use God as an explanation.so what do you answer when you don't have an answer?

I do however refer to science to explain/prove things as science uses verifiable evidence, logical consistency, parsimony in its arguments etc. I would agree this is a good way to explain things, but it does have its limitations. Personally whenever I quote scientific theory, I tend to say "apparently...." because unless I've done all the experiments myself I will not believe nor disbelieve, just accept.

When did I infer that you did? with:
Likewise, how does believing in a supernatural being affect your daily life?

Anyway, what do you believe in then?I believe in science and believe in a number of its principles. There are many others which I just don't understand. I am also of a spiritual mind. It has been said that magic is what science can't explain (yet). I do believe that there is something other than this material body, but what that is I really don't know.

Perhaps I can't accept that everything I am or do is the result of electrochemical exchanges.

[Strafio]

Depends how you would define dominant. I'd vote the viruses and bacillum.
I think you mean predator. Viruses prey on us but they sure aren't dominant (except maybe HIV). Take these mumps I'm suffering, :cry: they'll make my cheeks swell, cause pain when I eat things and I've read that a few days after these symptoms disappear there's a 1 in 3 chance that my balls will flame up and dish me pain like I could never imagine!! :eek:

But come next month, I'll be standing and the mumps will be permanently unable to take on my immune system again. Then again, I've supposedly had two innoculations to prevent them so God knows how they managed to get the better of me! :eek:

[wrydolphin]

Viruses aren't predators, they aren't even paracites because they aren't alive.

The dominant form of life on earth is in fact, bacteria. Without we would not survive.

The dominant mammalian would probably be rodents. There are way more rodents then humans.

[Topher]

Depends how you would define dominant. I'd vote the viruses and bacillum.
Humans are currently the apex of life from my view at least. Consciousness, knowledge, technology, dominence etc make us so.

Yes I think evolution is a perfectly plausible theory. It doesn't answer the questions of the origins of life, but is a good explination for the diversity of it. Indications of how climatic change can force evolutionary change are quite strong. Still doesn't explain where life originated from. The last theory I heard was that the essential amino acids were delivered on meteors. The gap between this and the simple life you refered to earlier has not been answered as far as I'm aware. Still leaves us with a big "I dunno" answer as far as I can tell, in which case "Goddidit" is just as valid an answer.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

I don’t see “Goddidit” has as just a valid answer as it not testable, and there is no evidence for it. Science on the other hand keeps discovering new information about the universe all the time. (Google “dark energy” and “dark matter”)

But if the answer you’re looking for is “why,” I doubt well ever get that, because I don’t think there was a reason.

That said, I’m not completely against the idea of a ‘creator’ starting the universe, but for now, there is no evidence for it and more importantly, no reason to believe in it.

Taking the idea of evolution with my comments above, after asking "why?" we end up at, where did the simple life that the rest of life come from? the answer is "i don't know". Our abilities end here (for the time being) so "God" is an answer, this does not, as you have suggested, rule out all other answers.
Again, evolution is NOT about the origin of life. And as I said, I don’t believe there was a reason for life.

The problem with God is it is a presumption, one that people are prepared to strongly believe in, despite the lack of evidence. If you don’t know something, don’t conclude it.

Its abit like "what killed the dinosaurs". some say dramitic climate change over a period of time, where as some say it way a huge meteor. I believe the debate is still raging. In simple terms the answer is "we don't know, but we think it might be "theory" because...". IMO this is no different to inserting "god" as a theory. How many people would subscibe to the theory is a different matter.
I disagree. God does explain life, but there is no evidence to believe in this explanation. A good explanation needs supporting evidence. And lack of evidence in one explanation (science) doesn’t mean more evidence for the opposing claims (God). Which again goes back to the argument: “Science cannot explain it, therefore it was God.” In addition you have the fact that God has been rendered useless in most areas (such as creation of life, morality etc). The only area where God might be of any use is the creation of the universe (although the fact of God being nullified elsewhere doesn’t encourage the God case) but as there is no evidence for this, and some evidence for the scientific explanations to the universe, I prefer the scientific explanation. Also see Occam’s Razor, which states the simpler of two arguments is be preferred.

Oh, and God isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis.

Again irrational does not necassarily mean illogical.
Yes, but for the God explanations to be good explanations, they must be logically sound. Yes, something can be rational, while at the same time illogical, but it doesn’t make a good argument because it isn’t logically consistent.

But anyway, you said explanations for God are “…logical, not all of them could be described as rational.” So then, give me a logical and/or rational argument for God.

so what do you answer when you don't have an answer?
You don’t answer, and that’s the point. Saying "i dont know" would be better.

However, there are good answers - from science. Science can and has provided very good logical, parsimonious, evidenced and tested arguments, which is why they are preferred. But when science doesn’t have an answer to the level which it requires - although it may speculate - it doesn’t conclude. No explanations for God have ever reached the same level of scientific explanations.

I would agree this is a good way to explain things, but it does have its limitations. Personally whenever I quote scientific theory, I tend to say "apparently...." because unless I've done all the experiments myself I will not believe nor disbelieve, just accept.
There are pseudo-scientists out there (ironically, usually with religious bias), so your right to be sceptical. But scientific peer review usually roots out the weeds. And the reputation/credibility of the scientist and/or source can make you pretty confident in the information. (In other words, going to "Answer in Genesis" or "DrDino" for scientific information is a big no no)

There are many others which I just don't understand.
Such as? Likewise, there is tons I don’t understand properly, but I wouldn’t use my ignorance of it to discredit it. Some people (no accusing you), usually the extremists, discredit something, just because they don’t understand it.


“Likewise, how does believing in a supernatural being affect your daily life?” <<< this was more a general question than a suggestion. I was asking that if we did (somehow) discover a creator, why would it affect someone’s life. Although, I guess when debating someone who appears to reject/questioning well tested and accepted theories over the supernatural, it usually implies religious convictions in said person (especially recently).

[CKava]

I don’t see “Goddidit” has as just a valid answer as it not testable, and there is no evidence for it. Science on the other hand keeps discovering new information about the universe all the time. (Google “dark energy” and “dark matter”)
I don't think using dark matter and dark energy is a good counter example to saying God did it. Since they are both working hypothesis and so far dark matter has never been observed or detected (it has been inferred from observations) and no-one is quite sure what the 'matter' it is made up from is and dark energy is in a similiar state. These hypothesis may prove to be correct but still I don't think dark matter/dark energy are the best example to counter someone's belief in God.

[Thelistmaker]

Did you ever wonder why electrons flow from negative to positive? Kinda counter-intuitive, isn't it?

NO!

The terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are completely arbitrary.

They could just as well be called A and B.

I used to know a very venerable 90 something electrical engineer who would to go on rants about even supposed engineers who fell into the trap of assigning certain properties to positive and negative terminals merely because of the name. :bang: He used to say calling the terms positive and negative the biggest mistake of the electrical engineering orthodoxy.

(He was by the way an ardent creationist, although I believe his objection to evolution was that it implied life had no meaning and was completely random. From the very spiritual type of man he was I belief that if he knew the details of evolutionary theory and cleared up his misconceptions he would find little contradiction between his faith and evolution) :Angel:

[Thelistmaker]

So, in other words, don’t take ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ literally :Angel:

[Aegis]

Take it however you like, it's all relative anyway. As long as you remain consistent, the calculations work.

Electrons flow from negative to positive because in our method of assigning charges, electrons (the sub-atomic particles free to move) are negatively charged, and like charges tend to repel each other. How we define electricity as flowing from positive to negative is actually incorrect if you want to talk about particle movement, but in terms of charge movement, it's correct.

[Mabinogi]

Here's a thought I had about God's rookie business strategy that just piled on top of the plethora of other nonsense in what should be called "The greatest novel ever."

You sin, even unborn babies are apparently on a par with axe wielding crackheads, and you say you're sorry and all that and you wont do it again and God just flings his gates open and says "Heeeeeeey come in come in, I hope you brought your own beer...only kidding this is heaven!"...and so on. BUT!!! :eek: If you dont repent, you go to hell...to join the ever growing ranks of the armies of Hell to battle against Heaven at Armageddon.

So basically God is acting as a recruitment agent against himself. THOUGHT THAT ONE THROUGH DIDN'T YOU BIG GUY!!! :Angel: (Just incase...I'm sorry :D)

[wrydolphin]

Actually, the Bible is not clear on Original Sin. That concept seems to have been added later by Aquinas if I remember correctly, and I may not. There are also passages which state that sin is not heritable. Also, most Celtic Christian churches do not buy into Original Sin, preferring to interpret it as death rather then sin. Thus Baptism is the redemption of sins which we commit within our own lives.

[Thelistmaker]

Electrons flow from negative to positive because in our method of assigning charges, electrons (the sub-atomic particles free to move) are negatively charged, and like charges tend to repel each other. How we define electricity as flowing from positive to negative is actually incorrect if you want to talk about particle movement, but in terms of charge movement, it's correct.

yes, but we could have called the repelling charges east and west or chalk and cheese and the usual crackpots of the past wouldn't have tried to link positive energy in the flower power sense with positive charge.

[Knight_Errant]

Electrons flow from negative to positive because in our method of assigning charges, electrons (the sub-atomic particles free to move) are negatively charged, and like charges tend to repel each other. How we define electricity as flowing from positive to negative is actually incorrect if you want to talk about particle movement, but in terms of charge movement, it's correct.
Reading these threads would actually be a good way for argumentative people to learn about science.

[Topher]

I don't think using dark matter and dark energy is a good counter example to saying God did it. Since they are both working hypothesis and so far dark matter has never been observed or detected (it has been inferred from observations) and no-one is quite sure what the 'matter' it is made up from is and dark energy is in a similiar state. These hypothesis may prove to be correct but still I don't think dark matter/dark energy are the best example to counter someone's belief in God.
You would be correct if that was my intention. ;)

My point was that science is constantly progressing and is not static like most God arguments and dark matter/dark energy are examples of [recent] progression. It was to illustrate that just because we don’t know something, doesn’t mean we never will.

[jujitsuka07]

I've not read this thread hardly at all, so I dunno what's been said, but here's my 2¢.

Evidence of an intelligent creator:

-The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun.
-The skin of our palms is just the right hardness so that we can pick things up...any softer and things like a pencil would just squish from our hands...any harder and our hands wouldn't contour (sp?) enough to hold it.
-When we get injuries, our bodies attempt to heal them.
-As Genesis says, plants, people, and animals reproduce after their own kind.
-We have an ozone layer to protect us.
-The Earth's gravity attracts oxygen so that all our oxygen doesn't just go floating away into outer space.
-We have enough water on this planet to last us a long time.
-We have the ability to think, to communicate, to reason.
-We have a sense of humor.
-We have common sense.
-We have conviction.
-Most of us have the awareness of a superior being or force, something that probably wouldn't be if there were no superior being/force.

And these are just a few. I'm studying science right now and it's so amazing to learn about the order of the universe...how things have their place in this universe, from atoms orbiting around a nucleus to planetary motion. All of this has to be held in it's order by something, or the universe as we know it would discintigrate (sp?) in total chaos. Some might say that the force that holds everything together, and keeps everything constant is just gravity, but what maintains the gravity? What keeps the gravity from going ballistic?

[CKava]

None of the points you listead are evidence of an intelligent creator. Also if your studying science then study a little harder because all the things you believe require an intelligent creator just don't...

[thepunisher]

Evidence of an intelligent creator:

-The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun.
-The skin of our palms is just the right hardness so that we can pick things up...any softer and things like a pencil would just squish from our hands...any harder and our hands wouldn't contour (sp?) enough to hold it.
-When we get injuries, our bodies attempt to heal them.
-As Genesis says, plants, people, and animals reproduce after their own kind.
-We have an ozone layer to protect us.
-The Earth's gravity attracts oxygen so that all our oxygen doesn't just go floating away into outer space.
-We have enough water on this planet to last us a long time.
-We have the ability to think, to communicate, to reason.
-We have a sense of humor.
-We have common sense.
-We have conviction.
-Most of us have the awareness of a superior being or force, something that probably wouldn't be if there were no superior being/force.


I have to say I agree with CKava, this isn't evidence of an intelligent creator at all. Especially the last point: Why should there be a superior being just because they are ppl out there believing there is one ? We also believe in aliens and UFO's and so far there is no solid evidence for this. And concerning points 1 and 7: we have water on the this planet but if its enough is a different question..also, you are forgetting that our water constantly gets recycled as well. And concerning the sun: This body is slowly moving away from us so in a couple million years our own planet could cool down completley again. And concerning the ozon layer: If god wanted to make sure all of us were in safety despite our bad gases we disperse every day why is the layer slowly depleting ? Because god wants to play a nasty joke on us ?

Concerning points 2,3,4 and 7,8,9 and 10: This has nothing to do with genesis but our genetic make up and evolution. We only slowly started to learn to think (the first neanderthals were primitive compared to us now), communicate and develop personalities. It didn't just happen. Like poof..and there is the perfect human able to speak, think etc.

And concerning all points except for the last one, which is a believe that has been imprinted in us humans (and luckily not all of us)since the first church existed on this planet, they can all be explained through science very easily.

Christian

[Aegis]

I've not read this thread hardly at all, so I dunno what's been said, but here's my 2¢.

Evidence of an intelligent creator:

-The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun.

Can you define "just right", and explain why this is such great evidence when there are incalcuble numbers of planets in the universe and therefore lots of instances where the distance could be "Just Right"

-The skin of our palms is just the right hardness so that we can pick things up...any softer and things like a pencil would just squish from our hands...any harder and our hands wouldn't contour (sp?) enough to hold it.

I fail to see how our hands being harder would prevent us from gripping things, but in any case this is explained by evolution. Any ability to grip objects would be a good survival trait (climbing would be quite useful for a tree-dwelling creature, for example), therefore any random mutation which improved grip would be positively selected for, and over successive generations would become more prevalent.

-When we get injuries, our bodies attempt to heal them.

The key word is "attempt". Our bodies often can't fight off a simple infection with good reliability, and can even be fooled into attacking itself under certain conditions. Certainly not evidence for an Intelligent Designer. In any case, this is the sort of result we'd expect from evolution given the right mutations, as a self-healing system improves the likelihood of an individual surviving to pass on its genes, and would therefore be selected for.

-As Genesis says, plants, people, and animals reproduce after their own kind.

Define "kind" and we can discuss this further. However, since evolutionary theory states that a species will always be a subset of its ancestors, we actually don't expect any one creature to give birth to anything other than a member its own species. Only after numerous successive generations with the descendent receiving multiple mutations will the genetic barrier that defines a species be formed, but even then there will be no such thing between adjoining generations,

-We have an ozone layer to protect us.

And? Early life didn't. As life evolved, the atmosphere changed, and life changed with it. If there hadn't been an ozone layer at any time for some reason, life would have evolved differently.

-The Earth's gravity attracts oxygen so that all our oxygen doesn't just go floating away into outer space.

Gravity attracts everything, it's not just for oxygen. And there's oxygen on earth because in the planet's distant past plants and other CO2-fixing life developed the ability to take CO2 and sunlight and form oxygen and carbohydrates. The original atmosphere ofthe planet is currently thought to have been reducing (i.e. little to no oxygen in the air). The balance we have today was caused by life, not made for our convenience.

-We have enough water on this planet to last us a long time.

We have life on a planet with lots of water, it's not really any surprise that life developed methods to use that water. In any case, water is a fairly fundamental chemical solvent and is formed easily from elemental oxygen and hydrogen, so it's not too surprising that it's fairly common...

-We have the ability to think, to communicate, to reason.
-We have a sense of humor.
-We have common sense.
-We have conviction.

All developed through evolutionary processes.


-Most of us have the awareness of a superior being or force, something that probably wouldn't be if there were no superior being/force.

"Probably"? That's not really a good word to use when trying to provide strong evidence for something. How do you explain the fairly large number of people who don't believe at all, that have no awareness of a higher being?

In addition to this, have you looked into the current historical hypotheses about where religion came from, as it's really quite fascinating to read about how it could have been a defence mechanism against the foresight of death that came with higher thought. By no means certain, but a very interesting idea.

And these are just a few. I'm studying science right now and it's so amazing to learn about the order of the universe...how things have their place in this universe, from atoms orbiting around a nucleus to planetary motion. All of this has to be held in it's order by something, or the universe as we know it would discintigrate (sp?) in total chaos. Some might say that the force that holds everything together, and keeps everything constant is just gravity, but what maintains the gravity? What keeps the gravity from going ballistic?

ok
Atoms don't orbit a nucleus. At the very basic level, you are taught that electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons, but that's not correct. A calculation of energy lost would show that if centrifugal acceleration was the reason for electrons being held in place, they would lose all their kinetic energy and crash into the protons in the nucleus in less than a second, resulting in the formation of neutrons. In actual fact, the electrons are held in place because they have certain low-energy states in atoms and molecules. The interesting thing about electrons is that they exist as a wave until they are observed, at which point the waves function collapses to a single point and gives you a location for the electron within the set of low-energy states. The really interesting thing about electrons is that they can pass through points where they have zero probability of being, in other words they can essentially teleport from one place to another. Of course, I'm not particularly good at quantum physics, but these basics fascinated me. They don't sound ordered though, not by a long shot!

Planetary motion on the other hand could be considered ordered, but when you take into account that fact that the universe has existed for some 15 or more billion years, it's likely that either matter will have settled into a pseudo-stable state by now or will instead have done whatever can go wrong (bodies crashing into each other rather than orbiting, etc). Of course, there will always be oddities in any system, so the fact that we have comets crashing into things is as little a problem as the fact that things orbit each other. It's just mathematical equations really, but maths often produces order.

As for what maintains gravity, why would we need something to maintain it? What reason do we have to believe that without maintenance gravity would somehow "go ballistic". It seems more logical to me that a force like gravity would simply maintain itself unless it was somehow interfered with.

[thepunisher]

In addition to this, have you looked into the current historical hypotheses about where religion came from, as it's really quite fascinating to read about how it could have been a defence mechanism against the foresight of death that came with higher thought. By no means certain, but a very interesting idea.

Hey Aegis, could you provide an information link for this ? I would be very interested in reading these hypotheses as I've never heard about this before. Thanks.

Christian

[Aegis]

Unfortunately the only reference I can quickly find to it is a short mention on Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB440.html). Where I originally saw it was on a documentary by the BBC (I believe), which is not a scientific source, I admit, but was still quite a fascinating explanation for the origins of religion from a more atheist perspective.

[jujitsuka07]

Quote by jujitsuka07: "Evidence of an intelligent creator: -The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun."

Quote by Aegis: "Can you define "just right", and explain why this is such great evidence when there are incalcuble numbers of planets in the universe and therefore lots of instances where the distance could be "Just Right""

Right for human life...yes, there are alot of distances in the universe that could be just right, but no other 'right distances' with suitable conditions that we know of, and the Earth's conditions have remained suitable for thousands of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-When we get injuries, our bodies attempt to heal them.

Quote by Aegis: "The key word is "attempt". Our bodies often can't fight off a simple infection with good reliability, and can even be fooled into attacking itself under certai conditions..."

Yes, but our bodies attacking themselves is not normal...the fact that our bodies even can be healed is miraculous, considering that some people think that everything is totally random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-As Genesis says, plants, people, and animals reproduce after their own kind.

Quote by Aegis: "Define "kind" and we can discuss this further."

Some evolutionist think that it's just chance that we've not knowingly gotten an elephant out of a bird yet. Order, order, order! (and by saying order, I don't mean that everything happens the same every time, I mean that there is a general gist to how things work/happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-We have an ozone layer to protect us.

Quote by Aegis:...If there hadn't been an ozone layer at any time for some reason, life would have evolved differently.

Assuming there would have been a life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-The Earth's gravity attracts oxygen so that all our oxygen doesn't just go floating away into outer space.

Quote by Aegis: Gravity attracts everything, it's not just for oxygen.

Yes, gravity attracts about everything, thankfully, including 'life-giving' oxygen & hydrogen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-We have enough water on this planet to last us a long time.

"...In any case, water is a fairly fundamental chemical solvent and is formed easily from elemental oxygen and hydrogen, so it's not too surprising that it's fairly common..."

Yeah, it's a good thing too!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-We have the ability to think, to communicate, to reason.
-We have a sense of humor.
-We have common sense.
-We have conviction.

Quote by Aegis: "All developed through evolutionary processes."

That's debatable, but I don't like to debate...so...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by jujitsuka07:
-Most of us have the awareness of a superior being or force, something that probably wouldn't be if there were no superior being/force.

Quote by Aegis: ""Probably"? That's not really a good word to use when trying to provide strong evidence for something. How do you explain the fairly large number of people who don't believe at all, that have no awareness of a higher being?"

I said "probably" because I am by no means infallable...I'm leaving room for error because I am well aware of the fact that error may occur. As I stated at the beggining of the post, these are just my 2 cents & my observations! Not infallable!!!

As to the "large number" of people who "don't believe"...most people believe that there is supreme being, many don't want to admit or don't want to say, according to studies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote by Aegis: ok Atoms don't orbit a nucleus. At the very basic level, you are taught that electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons, but that's not correct.

I have never heard this theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by the punisher: "I have to say I agree with CKava, this isn't evidence of an intelligent creator at all. Especially the last point: Why should there be a superior being just because they are ppl out there believing there is one ? We also believe in aliens and UFO's and so far there is no solid evidence for this"

Few people believe in UFO's as strongly as they believe in a superior being. What is it that drives us to believe that higher beings exist? I believe that it's a calling...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by the punisher: "we have water on the this planet but if its enough is a different question..also, you are forgetting that our water constantly gets recycled as well."

I'm not forgeting that water is recycled...that's ORDER...something has to make a circle be a circle or it's just a line...something brings the end of that cycle back to the beginning. As to enough water, we've not all died from not enough water on our planet yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by the punisher: "Concerning points 2,3,4 and 7,8,9 and 10: This has nothing to do with genesis but our genetic make up and evolution."

Genetic make up = Design = Order!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by the punisher: "And concerning all points except for the last one, which is a believe that has been imprinted in us humans (and luckily not all of us)since the first church existed on this planet, they can all be explained through science very easily."

Science, yes. Most people try to use science to disprove the Bible, but it only points toward the Truth of the Scriptures.

Yes, I believe that the sense of a superior being is imprinted on us. But if it were nothing more than remnants of church influence thousands of years ago, you'd think it would've died by now...that eventually along the line, people would became atheistic because they were sick of doing things "God's way", and they would say "No more theism". We would conclude that with no more influence to keep theism alive, that there would be no more theism...but, something keeps rekindling that sense within us even when we try to stomp it out, therfore, that something more than likely has to be ongoing...like a supreme being!

================================================== ==
Now, as I mentioned, these are just my thoughts...I do not intend to argue. These are my humble opinions and are BY NO MEANS AT ALL INFALLABLE!
Just something for others to take into consideration as I have considered the things you have said. Aegis, if you disagree to the point that you wish to debate, then please simply move on. When I posted this, I expected no attention..I you choose not to read this, that is 100-percently up to you!

[Aegis]

Quote by jujitsuka07: "Evidence of an intelligent creator: -The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun."

Quote by Aegis: "Can you define "just right", and explain why this is such great evidence when there are incalcuble numbers of planets in the universe and therefore lots of instances where the distance could be "Just Right""

Right for human life...yes, there are alot of distances in the universe that could be just right, but no other 'right distances' with suitable conditions that we know of, and the Earth's conditions have remained suitable for thousands of years.

We wouldn't expect to see much change in the conditions here on earth in a few thousand years, generally planetary changes are much more long-term. Interestingly enough, the planet we inhabit goes through ice ages and termperate periods, and we currently seem to be in a more temperate time at the moment.

In addition, you say that we don't know of any other planets like our own. The problem with this statement is that we can't even see most of the stars in the universe, but the ones that we can see do tend to have planets around them. Chances are that somewhere else in the universe there is a planet in the life-friendly range from its star. In fact, I think I recall hearing something fairly recently saying that there may be another planet similar in distance from its star (also similar) within detectable range. I'd have to chat to an astronomer to confirm this though.


Quote by jujitsuka07:
-When we get injuries, our bodies attempt to heal them.

Quote by Aegis: "The key word is "attempt". Our bodies often can't fight off a simple infection with good reliability, and can even be fooled into attacking itself under certai conditions..."

Yes, but our bodies attacking themselves is not normal...the fact that our bodies even can be healed is miraculous, considering that some people think that everything is totally random.

Who thinks everything is totally random? In any case, a mutation to adapt the mechanism for growing into an adult into a mechanism for growing tissue to fill gaps isn't entirely impossible to imagine, even if that is a gross simplification.


Quote by jujitsuka07:
-As Genesis says, plants, people, and animals reproduce after their own kind.

Quote by Aegis: "Define "kind" and we can discuss this further."

Some evolutionist think that it's just chance that we've not knowingly gotten an elephant out of a bird yet. Order, order, order! (and by saying order, I don't mean that everything happens the same every time, I mean that there is a general gist to how things work/happen.

Here's a little bit of information for you. If you found a bird giving birth to an elephant, it would DISprove evolution in quite a big way. Since birds and mammals are two completely separate taxanomic classifications, such an occurance would violate the prediction of evolutionary theory that every creature will fit into the twin-nested hierarchy of life classification. In other words, that everything will give birth to a member of the same species, only with modification due to random mutation.

By saying even in jest that evolution predicts birds giving birth to mammals, you put yourself into a very bad light when it comes to how much you know about the subject you're speaking against.

Quote by jujitsuka07:
-We have an ozone layer to protect us.

Quote by Aegis:...If there hadn't been an ozone layer at any time for some reason, life would have evolved differently.

Assuming there would have been a life.

I'm sure I mentioned before that life is currently thought to have started in a reducing atmosphere... This would preclude the existance of ozone.



Quote by jujitsuka07:
-The Earth's gravity attracts oxygen so that all our oxygen doesn't just go floating away into outer space.

Quote by Aegis: Gravity attracts everything, it's not just for oxygen.

Yes, gravity attracts about everything, thankfully, including 'life-giving' oxygen & hydrogen.

My point was that if gravity attracts everything, not just what we think is pretty convenient, how is this evidence for a creator of any description? After all, gravity is also responsible for black holes, avalanches and death by falling, none of which are particularly good for us.


Quote by jujitsuka07:
-We have enough water on this planet to last us a long time.

"...In any case, water is a fairly fundamental chemical solvent and is formed easily from elemental oxygen and hydrogen, so it's not too surprising that it's fairly common..."

Yeah, it's a good thing too!

It just is. Without water, life might have developed another way. However, since water is such an interesting compound with a number of unique properties and also since it was present in such large quantities when life was forming on this planet, it's again no surprise that water forms such an integral part of this planet's ecosystem.


Quote by jujitsuka07:
-We have the ability to think, to communicate, to reason.
-We have a sense of humor.
-We have common sense.
-We have conviction.

Quote by Aegis: "All developed through evolutionary processes."

That's debatable, but I don't like to debate...so...

So why mention them in the first place? If you'd looked on these threads first, you'd have noticed that people do in fact debate almost every point. It's not as simple a matter as posting and people accepting your points, especially not in the religion section.


Quote by jujitsuka07:
-Most of us have the awareness of a superior being or force, something that probably wouldn't be if there were no superior being/force.

Quote by Aegis: ""Probably"? That's not really a good word to use when trying to provide strong evidence for something. How do you explain the fairly large number of people who don't believe at all, that have no awareness of a higher being?"

I said "probably" because I am by no means infallable...I'm leaving room for error because I am well aware of the fact that error may occur. As I stated at the beggining of the post, these are just my 2 cents & my observations! Not infallable!!!

As to the "large number" of people who "don't believe"...most people believe that there is supreme being, many don't want to admit or don't want to say, according to studies.

What studies?

All of the atheists I know in real life are genuine non-believers. They're not afraid or unwilling to admit that there is a god, they really just don't believe in one. Same with me. I think they probably know their own minds.


Quote by Aegis: ok Atoms don't orbit a nucleus. At the very basic level, you are taught that electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons, but that's not correct.

I have never heard this theory.

You've never heard of atomic theory? I thought you were the one who brought it up in the first place?

Now, as I mentioned, these are just my thoughts...I do not intend to argue. These are my humble opinions and are BY NO MEANS AT ALL INFALLABLE!
Just something for others to take into consideration as I have considered the things you have said. Aegis, if you disagree to the point that you wish to debate, then please simply move on. When I posted this, I expected no attention..I you choose not to read this, that is 100-percently up to you!

I'll reply to whatever's posted here that I have issues of some description with. If you don't want me to disagree with what you think, then don't put that thought into the written medium and post it on a forum I moderate. Asking me not to comment on what I see as bad science is like asking me not to comment if I see a blatant McDojo recruitment scheme going on elsewhere on MAP.

[Moony]

Wow....I've just been linked in to this post and to be honest it's mildly amazing.

How can someone not know atomic theory??? Even year 7 kids (age 11-12) are taught in UK schools the basics that atoms exist and have electrons. The mind boggles, it truely does.

Then people with a less than sound knowledge of science try and use their 'version' to argue against real scientists. Certain failure every time.

Moony

[DCombatives]

In a lot ways, this thread is like the 'style vs. style', or the 'my style is way more effective than anyone elses' threads. As someone pointed out early it's impossible to apply logic to a topic that is defined as a belief that transcends logic. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. I would, however, be interested in seeing if God can prove or disprove the existence of science...

Let me start by saying that I believe in the existence of God. You can't be intellectually honest unless you lay your cards out up-front. My faith is deep and personal. I don't go around trying to convert others to it, but I will share it if I'm asked. Unlike many, I question my faith and its beliefs quite often. If you're blindly reciting the platitudes of your forefathers, you don't have a faith, you have a habit. Faith comes from examining and questioning the teachings, putting them into historical and cultural perspective, and finally finding the truth for yourself.

Logic and reason and science are good things. They help us understand our world, and I believe God wanted us to study it or he wouldn't have given us the capacity or the free will in the first place. Applying logic to the question of God's existence however, leaves us with nothing but questions and long-running internet forum debates about something no one can prove or disprove. What we can do, is apply logic to the process of questioning God's existence and whether or not we should choose to believe.

In doing so, we come to 2 conclusions, with 2 possible responses, or 4 total options:

1. We accept the existence of God, but there is no God. In this choice, we have decieved ourselves, but since there is no afterlife, we never know it and die happy believing we'll be taken care of.

2. We reject the existence of God, and there is no God. In this choice, we guessed right but we never know it because there is no afterlife for us to enjoy our smug satisfaction.

3. We accept the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we have again guessed correctly and are rewarded with an afterlife. What that afterlife is like is irrelevant to this discussion at the moment.

4. We reject the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we are screwed because the creator of the universe will most likely not take kindly to being thought of as a myth for the ignorant. I don't pretend to know the will of God (although Fred Phelps insists he does), but if He really did flood the earth, I wouldn't like my odds as an unbeliever.

So logically speaking, the only way to "lose" our little afterlife multiple choice game is to reject the existence of God. Therefore, it doesn't make logical sense to be an athiest. We have a 50% chance of never knowing, a 25% chance of being punished for eternity, and a 25% chance of coming out on top. Since not playing is not an option, it really only makes sense to put your money on your only chance of winning. There's no return on investment with the other choices. The sad part is there's a lot of athiests who'll go to Vegas and play with odds that are much worse.

[CKava]

Dunno about your argument DC gets a bit more complicated when you factor in that each religion has a different assortment of Gods (or a single God). And if your right and God is so spiteful that he will punish people for not believing in him then it would also seem that he would probably punish people for worshipping a false God too. So your chances of picking the right one are hugely unfavourable. Furthermore, you would wonder why the creator of the universe would have such a huge inferiority complex that he choses to punish people eternally for not believing in him even if they lived a perfectly good life.

[thepunisher]

DCombatives, in your little flawed logic game you forgot something. You are the only one putting "there is a god" everywhere. So that logic only applies to you, not anyone else. I don't have to put "there is a god" after every one of your logical conclusion games because frankly, I don't believe in him. So I also don't have to believe there is a hell to be punished in or anything else you have listed. See, thats were the flawed logic goes with some religious persons: If we already don't believe in god or some higher power, in logical conclusion we also can't go to hell, pay for our sins or even have to expect to be judged by him....

But you are right in pointing out that this is like a "style vs style" thingy so how about you stop putting more wood into the already burning fire that is this debate with your point-of-view.

Christian

[CosmicFish]

In doing so, we come to 2 conclusions, with 2 possible responses, or 4 total options:

1. We accept the existence of God, but there is no God. In this choice, we have decieved ourselves, but since there is no afterlife, we never know it and die happy believing we'll be taken care of.

2. We reject the existence of God, and there is no God. In this choice, we guessed right but we never know it because there is no afterlife for us to enjoy our smug satisfaction.

3. We accept the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we have again guessed correctly and are rewarded with an afterlife. What that afterlife is like is irrelevant to this discussion at the moment.

4. We reject the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we are screwed because the creator of the universe will most likely not take kindly to being thought of as a myth for the ignorant. I don't pretend to know the will of God (although Fred Phelps insists he does), but if He really did flood the earth, I wouldn't like my odds as an unbeliever.
I believe you've just quoted Pascal's Wager. The biggest problem I have with that is the implicit assumption that the existence or non-existence of God is a roughly 50/50 chance either way. IMO, the odds for God existing are far far smaller.

And for the record I'm assuming we're talking about a specific kind of God here:
* One that demands belief but provides no conclusive proof of his/her/it's existence.
* One that will chuck those who don't believe in him/her/it into a place of torture for all eternity.
* And presumably also one who is so slow-witted that he/she/it won't see through a mortal attempt to get the best deal by gambling on the safest bet, rather than believing in God for some more noble reason.

[DCombatives]

Fish, I don't pretend to be a philosopher so I was trying to simplify the possibilities to the broadest categories possible. I've never heard of Pascal's Wager, but I would be very surprised if someone hadn't thought of this before me. Still, in the end there either is, or is not a God so barring an conclusive proof, it's still a 50/50 shot. When it comes to the specifics of which God, religion, etc. I get more fluid. I just can't see how something corrupted by the hands of man and manipulated over thousands of years for man's advantage can be the yardstick God would use. For me, it's important to have faith and find the truth in your heart. Yours and mine don't have to be the same. Think different expressions of the same content.

Christian, in 2 of the 4 possibilities I do indeed say "there is a God". In the other 2, I say, "there is no God". How this equates to "I say God is everywhere" is something my simple minded American brain can't grasp. 2 out of 4 is a proportion of 1/2, at least in an American math class. That notwithstanding, it still boils down to this: if you're right, you'll never know it. If you're wrong, you'll suffer horribly. If you're good with that, who am I to argue?

[Aegis]

In doing so, we come to 2 conclusions, with 2 possible responses, or 4 total options:

1. We accept the existence of God, but there is no God. In this choice, we have decieved ourselves, but since there is no afterlife, we never know it and die happy believing we'll be taken care of.

2. We reject the existence of God, and there is no God. In this choice, we guessed right but we never know it because there is no afterlife for us to enjoy our smug satisfaction.

3. We accept the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we have again guessed correctly and are rewarded with an afterlife. What that afterlife is like is irrelevant to this discussion at the moment.

4. We reject the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we are screwed because the creator of the universe will most likely not take kindly to being thought of as a myth for the ignorant. I don't pretend to know the will of God (although Fred Phelps insists he does), but if He really did flood the earth, I wouldn't like my odds as an unbeliever.

So logically speaking, the only way to "lose" our little afterlife multiple choice game is to reject the existence of God. Therefore, it doesn't make logical sense to be an athiest. We have a 50% chance of never knowing, a 25% chance of being punished for eternity, and a 25% chance of coming out on top. Since not playing is not an option, it really only makes sense to put your money on your only chance of winning. There's no return on investment with the other choices. The sad part is there's a lot of athiests who'll go to Vegas and play with odds that are much worse.

Option 5: You believe in (and presumably worship) a god, but there is actually another god, one as jealous as the christian one is protrayed to be in the Old Testament. He hates believers in another deity even more than he hates atheists.

Option 6: There is a god but he doesn't care if you believe in him or not. Everyone is judged according to their acts, not who they believe in or pay lip-service to.


Just 2 more options out of many. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes that belief always leads to a good outcome if there is a god, while it is extremely likely that if the supreme being is anything like the christian god in the old testament, picking the wrong god could be a hell of a lot worse than not believing in anything. Once you start including more options like this, especially if option 5 is expanded to include every god ever worshipped, the logical conclusion is that the best stance is the neutral one.

However, that's not why I'm an atheist, just a rebuttal to the Wager.

[CosmicFish]

Fish, I don't pretend to be a philosopher so I was trying to simplify the possibilities to the broadest categories possible. I've never heard of Pascal's Wager, but I would be very surprised if someone hadn't thought of this before me. Still, in the end there either is, or is not a God so barring an conclusive proof, it's still a 50/50 shot. When it comes to the specifics of which God, religion, etc. I get more fluid. I just can't see how something corrupted by the hands of man and manipulated over thousands of years for man's advantage can be the yardstick God would use. For me, it's important to have faith and find the truth in your heart. Yours and mine don't have to be the same. Think different expressions of the same content.
Fair enough. I'm no philosopher either, but I like to mull these kind of ideas over, so I can understand where you're coming from. :)

I'd disagree with is being a 50/50 shot though. That's like me saying "I don't want to go out of the house today in case a piano falls on my head." And when a friend tells me I'm daft because the odds on that are tiny, me replying with "In the end there either is, or is not a piano poised and ready to fall on me, so barring conclusive proof, it's still a 50/50 shot".

To be clear, I'm not saying the odds on a piano falling on my head are the same as God existing. I'm saying that you can't assign a 50/50 chance to something being true based on the fact that there are only 2 options.

Edit: Here's a link for more info on Pascal's Wager -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[thepunisher]

That notwithstanding, it still boils down to this: if you're right, you'll never know it. If you're wrong, you'll suffer horribly. If you're good with that, who am I to argue?

Suffer horribly ? Suffer what horribly DCombatives ? Your negative view on what will happen to non-believers ? The only ppl believing there is a "hell" or "heaven" is ppl that believe. Why there even is such a distinction is beyond me. It only shows me that whoever came up with this found a great tool to keep believers like yourself in line. Tell them they go to "hell" if they decide to (maybe)become non-believers and they won't deter from their path.

By the way, you sound like a preacher man above..give me the odds, make it sound as if gods the only right path and don't worry, any non-believer will come running. Was that the way your were told to join your religion ?

Christian

[DCombatives]

No Christian, as I clearly articulated earlier, that's not the way I was brought up in my faith, nor is it the way I view the subject today. If you start from a more agnostic view point of "I don't know" and begin weighing your options as "should I or shouldn't I pick a religion", you inevitably get around to weighing the possible outcomes. Again, assume you just don't know what happens when we die (and none of us really do) and work your way thru to the logical conclusions to your various options. Just because I believe there is a God, doesn't mean that there is; it means I believe there is. I can't prove God's existence and I have to accept the fact that my belief might be wrong. But you cannot prove there isn't a God either. Unless you have died and come back, you have to admit that you do not know what happens when we die, therefore you have to accept the possibility that your belief is wrong, just as I have. What I'm saying here is that to start from a position of not knowing, weighing your options vis-a-vi the potential outcomes of those choices, it doesn't make sense for a rational person to choose a godless existence. Whether or not that's real faith, or if there is a God he'll know who was gaming the system is irrelevant to my point.

For my friend with the piano analogy; where I would submit we differ is there are things you can do to empirically verify the presence or absence of the piano without going outside. We can't do that with God. For every piece of "evidence" someone has against God's existence, someone else has something that "proves" God exists, often refering to the statistical impossibility that certain things happened randomly, etc. Usually at that point, the discussion breaks down into a "well if there is a God how come he lets this or that terrible thing happen, etc" and people begin debating the existence of God in terms of there own human morallity. The other thing is you seem to be suggesting the likelihood of God's existence is less than 50% while what I'm saying is that in formulating our assumptions we have to start from a position where there either is or is not a God. I'm not trying to prove or disprove the statistical probability of a diety, I'm pointing out that in the absence of any empirical evidence, we can only start from one of those two positions.

[thepunisher]

What I'm saying here is that to start from a position of not knowing, weighing your options vis-a-vi the potential outcomes of those choices, it doesn't make sense for a rational person to choose a godless existence.

Actually, if you put it this way it actually makes alot of sense. Why does it matter if god exists to your current existence ? I don't think it does because frankly, even if you believe in him as I assume you do, what difference does his being there make on you or your life ? I can't imagine a whole lot. And once again, you are forgetting something, me not believing in god I don't have to weigh any options concerning when I die and him being there. If he appears all of a sudden and tells me I go to hell because I don't believe in him well, then he has proven me only right in me not believing in him, hasn't he ? And to be honest, I'd rather take that option than put my faith into something that makes no sense at all, even to a "rational" person. Also, if god was really around why should I have to weigh up my options ? I thought he is an all caring, all loving being ? Doesn't that mean he should also love the people not believing in him and not prepare a special:"You go to hell because you don't believe in me !" cocktail for us ? See DCombatives, when you start applying this kind of logic to it than alot of things in religion don't make sense. And that makes me wonder how come any "rational" person can even try to believe in something like god.

Christian

[CosmicFish]

For my friend with the piano analogy; where I would submit we differ is there are things you can do to empirically verify the presence or absence of the piano without going outside. We can't do that with God. For every piece of "evidence" someone has against God's existence, someone else has something that "proves" God exists, often refering to the statistical impossibility that certain things happened randomly, etc. Usually at that point, the discussion breaks down into a "well if there is a God how come he lets this or that terrible thing happen, etc" and people begin debating the existence of God in terms of there own human morallity.
So, if I understand you correctly, in essence you're saying there's no conclusive proof one way or the other, so there's no way to decide what the probablility of each being true is? And in the absence of which, it's not unreasonable to chose a 50/50 split?

On the face of it this sounds reasonable. If you define God as broadly as possible, perhaps as "some kind of higher creating intelligence" then I'd agree with a 50/50 split.

The problem is, to make Pascal's Wager even make sense, you need to make certain assumptions about that God:
* There is only one God.
* You've already managed to choose the correct religion.
* The God you're discussing wants us to believe in him without him providing us anything in the way of conclusive proof.
* The God you're discussing is of an inclination to punish unbelievers.

All of these assumptions are implicit in Pascals' Wager. Without them, the wager wouldn't even make any sense. The problem I have is, IMO, there's no reason to make these assumptions - you're taking quite a bit on faith there with no reason to assume it's true at all. It might be a safe bet to rely on Pascal's Wager if you know the assumptions are already true, but I doubt you do. And so you're actually taking quite a few unproven assumptions on faith.

The other thing is you seem to be suggesting the likelihood of God's existence is less than 50% while what I'm saying is that in formulating our assumptions we have to start from a position where there either is or is not a God. I'm not trying to prove or disprove the statistical probability of a diety, I'm pointing out that in the absence of any empirical evidence, we can only start from one of those two positions.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, yeah. "Some kind of God ~ 50/50." "Specifically the Christian God = far less than 50% chance".

As far as starting from one of the two positions is concerned, wouldn't you think it makes more sense to start from the point of view that has less assumptions and less complications?

* If you assume there is no God - You don't know where the universe came from or what your role, if any, is in it. However, you're starting with a clean sheet, so to speak. You're free to start hypothesising about the nature of the universe, etc. without any unproven assumptions cluttering up your reasoning.

* If you assume there is a God - You still don't know where the universe came from, or your role in it, you're just passing the buck to God. On top of that, because you've assumed that some kind of God exists, you then have to figure out where this God fits into the scheme of the whole universe. it creates an extra, and needless, complication.

[thepunisher]

* If you assume there is no God - You don't know where the universe came from or what your role, if any, is in it. However, you're starting with a clean sheet, so to speak. You're free to start hypothesising about the nature of the universe, etc. without any unproven assumptions cluttering up your reasoning.

* If you assume there is a God - You still don't know where the universe came from, or your role in it, you're just passing the buck to God. On top of that, because you've assumed that some kind of God exists, you then have to figure out where this God fits into the scheme of the whole universe. it creates an extra, and needless, complication.

Nicely put CosmicFish. You actually put it into better words what I was trying to explain with my own point-of-view above. Namely that a non-believer actually doesn't assume there is a god and so can just start assuming about the universe on its own and also in the same view doesn't have to worry about any repercussions to not believing.

Christian

[CosmicFish]

Nicely put CosmicFish. You actually put it into better words what I was trying to explain with my own point-of-view above. Namely that a non-believer actually doesn't assume there is a god and so can just start assuming about the universe on its own and also in the same view doesn't have to worry about any repercussions to not believing.

Christian
LOL! Glad you like it. I actually find it quite hard to put these thoughts into words too. I literally spent nearly all of my lunch hour compiling that reply. Editing, re-editing, changing bits and re-reading it to make sure it made sense.

Hope you appreciate it DC. ;)

[Topher]

As far as starting from one of the two positions is concerned, wouldn't you think it makes more sense to start from the point of view that has less assumptions and less complications?

* If you assume there is no God - You don't know where the universe came from or what your role, if any, is in it. However, you're starting with a clean sheet, so to speak. You're free to start hypothesising about the nature of the universe, etc. without any unproven assumptions cluttering up your reasoning.

* If you assume there is a God - You still don't know where the universe came from, or your role in it, you're just passing the buck to God. On top of that, because you've assumed that some kind of God exists, you then have to figure out where this God fits into the scheme of the whole universe. it creates an extra, and needless, complication.
Occam's Razor :cool:

A non-believe will accept a God with good reason and evidence, but we prefer to start with a clean page and work from there. The 'problem' is no real evidence has eve been provided. Starting with the assumption of God dosn't answer the questions, it just provides more.

4. We reject the existence of God, and there is a God. In this choice, we are screwed because the creator of the universe will most likely not take kindly to being thought of as a myth for the ignorant. I don't pretend to know the will of God (although Fred Phelps insists he does), but if He really did flood the earth, I wouldn't like my odds as an unbeliever.
Any God worthy of worship would judge you on your character, life, the good/bad you’ve done. NOT whether you believed in him.

With that in mind, the important factor is to live a good life, opposed to an evil one.

From my view it’s logically better to not believe in God and live a good life as if you believe in God you must first select the correct God (unknown) and the correct method of worshiping that God (also unknown). The point being there are multiple problems and variables with believing in God which means more error for ‘failure’

As others have said: heaven, hell, judgement day etc only mean something to those who already believe, making it a kind of ‘detainment’ of fear.

For every piece of "evidence" someone has against God's existence, someone else has something that "proves" God exists, often refering to the statistical impossibility that certain things happened randomly, etc.
Randomly? Who believes things happened randomly?

I don’t think either side has proof or disproof in God, but the atheistic and general scientific “side” have very good reasons and logical evidence not to believe in God. The same can not be said for the God “side.”

[tbubb1]

Any God worthy of worship would judge you on your character, life, the good/bad you’ve done. NOT whether you believed in him.

He IS judging you based on the good/bad things you've done in life. Believing in Christ means believing he took the blame for your sin (all the bad). This means God need not judge the bad as it's already been paid for through his son.

[Topher]

He IS judging you based on the good/bad things you've done in life. Believing in Christ means believing he took the blame for your sin (all the bad). This means God need not judge the bad as it's already been paid for through his son.
So if you commit murder, rape and/or do a bunch of other crimes and evil things in your life, then turn to or already accept Jesus, your heinous crimes in the passed would be nullified, despite the lives you ruined?

Likewise, an atheist who spends his life doing good, helping people, being a moral citizen and helping the world etc would go to hell because he didn't turn to Jesus.

Regardless if some bloke thousends of years ago "takes the blame," YOU still committed the crime and someone taking the blame dosn't change a thing.

It's logic like this which makes Christianity pathetic :rolleyes:

[aikiMac]

It's logic like this which makes Christianity pathetic :rolleyes:
Only if one assumes that the good he does cancels out the bad that he does.

Not everyone shares that assumption.

(How much good do I have to do tomorrow to make up for the bad that I did yesterday? :confused: )

[Sparkle]

So if you commit murder, rape and/or do a bunch of other crimes and evil things in your life, then turn to or already accept Jesus, your heinous crimes in the passed would be nullified, despite the lives you ruined?

Likewise, an atheist who spends his life doing good, helping people, being a moral citizen and helping the world etc would go to hell because he didn't turn to Jesus.

Regardless if some bloke thousends of years ago "takes the blame," YOU still committed the crime and someone taking the blame dosn't change a thing.

It's logic like this which makes Christianity pathetic :rolleyes:

Umm . . . ummm . . . no. I'm sorry but it is a lot deeper and a lot more complicated then that. Lol, I bet you were smiling all happy as you clicked "Submit Reply" thinking that you just shut everone up or something?

[thepunisher]

Regardless if some bloke thousends of years ago "takes the blame," YOU still committed the crime and someone taking the blame dosn't change a thing.

It's logic like this which makes Christianity pathetic :rolleyes:

Actually Homer, what it does is shift the responsiblity for your evil deeds, etc. to someone thats no longer there. Meaning, you can do whatever evil you want, its not YOUR responsibility but gods and Jesus's. And how pathetic is that ? You do your 100 hail marys and don't worry, god and jesus will take care of all your evil deeds. So you just continue doing them. Its like your mother going at you for stealing a bar of chocolate, then telling you to go up to your room and the next morning its forgotten. So you can steal again.

Christian

[jonmonk]

Regardless if some bloke thousends of years ago "takes the blame," YOU still committed the crime and someone taking the blame dosn't change a thing.Just out of curiosity Homer, if a rapist or murderer really was repentent, do you think there is anything they could do in order to atone for what they did so they can get on with their lives? I mean, if they were ever to really change, wouldn't it be necessary for them to feel that they can be forgiven?

[thepunisher]

Umm . . . ummm . . . no. I'm sorry but it is a lot deeper and a lot more complicated then that. Lol, I bet you were smiling all happy as you clicked "Submit Reply" thinking that you just shut everone up or something?

Actually no sparkle, its not as complicated as that. In fact, thats the most simple explanation to give to something like that. Its only you that is making it complicated. Think it through and it will make sense to you.

Christian

[Sparkle]

Actually Homer, what it does is shift the responsiblity for your evil deeds, etc. to someone thats no longer there. Meaning, you can do whatever evil you want, its not YOUR responsibility but gods and Jesus's. And how pathetic is that ? You do your 100 hail marys and don't worry, god and jesus will take care of all your evil deeds. So you just continue doing them. Its like your mother going at you for stealing a bar of chocolate, then telling you to go up to your room and the next morning its forgotten. So you can steal again.

Christian

:bang: God bless you people . . . . .

[thepunisher]

Just out of curiosity Homer, if a rapist or murderer really was repentent, do you think there is anything they could do in order to atone for what they did so they can get on with their lives? I mean, if they were ever to really change, wouldn't it be necessary for them to feel that they can be forgiven?

Would you as a human being ever forgive a murderer jonmonk ? So why should god ? And its already proven he doesn't because otherwise why does he already put a judgment of "hell" on ppl who don't believe ? If that is already a sin in itself I can imagine being a murderer is even worse.

Christian

[jonmonk]

Would you as a human being ever forgive a murderer jonmonk ?I honestly don't know. I hope never to find out.
So why should god ?Perhaps because humans can't? I don't actually believe in the Christian view of god but I can understand why, in terms of forgiveness, a person might need one.
And its already proven he doesn't because otherwise why does he already put a judgment of "hell" on ppl who don't believe ? If that is already a sin in itself I can imagine being a murderer is even worse.I remember last time this came up and Sparkle actually posted something that made me think about it all a bit more deeply. 'scuse me Sparkle if I don't get it exactly right, but it was something along the lines of accepting Christ and accepting Christ's teachings are one in the same thing. Christ might have been a bit of a trouble maker in his time but if the biblical stories are taken to be more-or-less correct then he was at the very least a pacifist believing in non-violence. Wouldn't that also mean that someone who'd truly taken his teaching to heart simply wouldn't act in an 'evil' way?

[Topher]

Only if one assumes that the good he does cancels out the bad that he does.

Not everyone shares that assumption.

(How much good do I have to do tomorrow to make up for the bad that I did yesterday? :confused: )
Which raises the question: Which assumption is correct?

Does accepting Jesus cancel the evil you done and thus gets you into heaven, or does the evil you don't block you from heaven full stop?

[Topher]

Would you as a human being ever forgive a murderer jonmonk ? So why should god ? And its already proven he doesn't because otherwise why does he already put a judgment of "hell" on ppl who don't believe ? If that is already a sin in itself I can imagine being a murderer is even worse.

Christian
A good example of one contradiction there?

If God is all loving and forgiving, why the need for hell?

[aikiMac]

Just out of curiosity Homer, if a rapist or murderer really was repentent, do you think there is anything they could do in order to atone for what they did so they can get on with their lives? I mean, if they were ever to really change, wouldn't it be necessary for them to feel that they can be forgiven?
:eek:
I'm printing that and keeping it!
Dude, that was brilliant!


Which raises the question: Which assumption is correct?
Yep.


Does accepting Jesus cancel the evil you done and thus gets you into heaven, or does the evil you don't block you from heaven full stop?
If you don't know the answer, then you shouldn't have been speaking as though you know the answer in older posts.

[Humblebee]

Every saint has a past
Every sinner has a future

[Moony]

Just out of curiosity Homer, if a rapist or murderer really was repentent, do you think there is anything they could do in order to atone for what they did so they can get on with their lives? I mean, if they were ever to really change, wouldn't it be necessary for them to feel that they can be forgiven?

Cutting their own nadgers off with a dull rusty blade whilst having someone pour viniger/lemon juice on the insition might be a start.....

Moony

[thepunisher]

If you don't know the answer, then you shouldn't have been speaking as though you know the answer in older posts.

Looks more to me that he is reasking a question because someone else pointed out something that didn't quite make a lot of sense before.

By the way, I'm not so sure what is so brilliant about that first thing jonmonk said ? Care to point it out to me. Sounds like a simple logical thought process to me unless you are so hyper about the thought of being "forgiven".

Christian

[aikiMac]

By the way, I'm not so sure what is so brilliant about that first thing jonmonk said ? Care to point it out to me. Sounds like a simple logical thought process to me unless you are so hyper about the thought of being "forgiven".
Quote: "I mean, if they were ever to really change, wouldn't it be necessary for them to feel that they can be forgiven?"

Jonmonk just gave people a reason to change bad behavior, and he did it in a way that succinctly and accurately (says me) explains Jesus Christ's entire life. :eek:

In contrast, a few posts up you gave people no motivation to change bad behavior. Double " :eek: "

[Topher]

I'm printing that and keeping it!
Dude, that was brilliant!
Fantastic! I assume you also noted the reply by punisher? As follows:
Would you as a human being ever forgive a murderer jonmonk ? So why should god ? And its already proven he doesn't because otherwise why does he already put a judgment of "hell" on ppl who don't believe ? If that is already a sin in itself I can imagine being a murderer is even worse.

Yep.
Well, which is it?

If you don't know the answer, then you shouldn't have been speaking as though you know the answer in older posts.
No, i’m listing two possibilities which you have just diverted. Please answer.

I never spoke as if I knew the answer; I posted what believe makes more logical sense: a God that judges you on your character, morals, life and how you live it etc, not your belief in him or Jesus or a book etc.

I also posted the problems with possible numerous Gods and the assumptions about Gods will and judgment. And also the conundrum that if God is all forgiving and all loving, why would he send someone to hell, because according to the logic of his nature, he would forgive.

In contrast, a few posts up you gave people no motivation to change bad behavior. Double " :eek:"
A murder is welcome, or rather, is encouraged to change his life around, but they would still be held accountable for their crime, that wouldn’t be forgiven and swept under the rug'. I don’t see the ‘special role’ Jesus/God has in this change. First and foremost, the person must want to change, until then nothing will really work. As the Buddhists say: Change comes from within ;)

[jujitsuka07]

Most evolutionist theories that I hear imply that evolutionists think that everything is more or less random...I guess that's not the case with many??? Sorry. My fault.

Quote by Aegis: "ok atoms don't orbit a nucleus. At the very basic level, you are taught that electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons, but that's not correct.

Quote by jujitsuka07: I have never heard this theory

Quote by Aegis: You've never heard of atomic theory? I thought you were the one who brought it up in the first place?

No, no...I mean that I never heard that the theory that electrons orbiting a proton & neutron nucleus is not correct.

I'm not saying that you can't comment on what I write...I'm just saying if you see it as foolish, do yourself a favor and don't raise your blood pressure over something I say. Again, I am not infallible. To avoid further potential loss of face to anyone, I think it wise to bow out for now, and offer my sincere appologies to anyone I offended.

[aikiMac]

Fantastic! I assume you also noted the reply by punisher? As follows:
[i]Would you as a human being ever forgive a murderer jonmonk ? So why should god ?
Yes, that was the line that I was referring to. Punisher would not forgive, but God would. As Jonmonk pointed out, God's forgiveness is motivation to the sinner to repent, but Punisher's lack of forgiveness is no motivation to repent.

If forgiveness is a mark of love, and I believe it is, then on the love scale God beats Punisher, because God is offering more love than Punisher.

The rest of the statement that you quoted is a gross misstatement of Christianity. If you consider that Easter is celebrated every year, you will forgive me for doubting the sincerity of people who support such terrible misstatements. You want to make fun of people who get evolution wrong when instruction in evolution is everywhere available. Well, play fair. Instruction in Christianity is everywhere available. There is no excuse for not knowing the essential points of the religion.


Well, which is it?
Is there a question in there? :confused: You honestly lost me dude.


I never spoke as if I knew the answer;
Pffffttt!
Ya, and the Pope is not Catholic. :rolleyes: Whatever.


A murder is welcome, or rather, is encouraged to change his life around, but they would still be held accountable for their crime, that wouldn’t be forgiven and swept under the rug'. I don’t see the ‘special role’ Jesus/God has in this change.
Assume for a few seconds that the good you do today does not cancel out the bad that you did yesterday. That's an essential tenet of the religion. Play fair. If Preacher Man is stupid for not knowing the essentials of evolution, then you're stupid for not knowing the everywhere-available essentials of Christianity. When this assumption is granted, the "special role," as you put it, makes sense.

[CKava]

I'm not saying that you can't comment on what I write...I'm just saying if you see it as foolish, do yourself a favor and don't raise your blood pressure over something I say. Again, I am not infallible. To avoid further potential loss of face to anyone, I think it wise to bow out for now, and offer my sincere appologies to anyone I offended.
Jujitsuka07 you should develop a little thicker skin, from reading Aegis reply I doubt his blood pressure raised one notch while he wrote his reply he simply explained to you why your understanding of the science you posted to support your theories was lacking. You don't have to be infallible to post on the topic but you shouldn't act like its the most dreadful thing in the world when someone corrects errors you post. If you look at it positively you now know a little more science than you did when you first posted... I don't see why that's causing you to lose face or feeling the need to bow out though.

Oh and Im with Aikimac at this point the extreme atheist side is coming across as pig headed as a bunch of creationists!

[Aegis]

Oh and Im with Aikimac at this point the extreme atheist side is coming across as pig headed as a bunch of creationists!

It always has. At the very basic level, there is no harm whatsoever in people believing in a deity. The problems arise when that belief is pushed on others, whether in the form of evangelising, harassment in the streets or pushing their religion into science through political avenues, especially when all this is done with no consideration for what others believe, or in the case of science have discovered.

As much as I reply to these topics, I actually don't want people to deconvert from their faiths and become atheists like me, I just don't like people using bad logic or (sometimes even worse) science to back up their beliefs when it is clearly a matter of faith and nothing more (or less for that matter)

[thepunisher]

Quote: "I mean, if they were ever to really change, wouldn't it be necessary for them to feel that they can be forgiven?"

Jonmonk just gave people a reason to change bad behavior, and he did it in a way that succinctly and accurately (says me) explains Jesus Christ's entire life. :eek:

In contrast, a few posts up you gave people no motivation to change bad behavior. Double " :eek: "

I don't think its my right to give ppl "motivation to change". I also hope that you as a good Christian don't take it upon yourself to go around trying to change ppl because I think that shows alot of arrogance on your part. And aikimac, its been proven by criminal records that even murderers that have adopted god will still kill again. So you tell me what BS this is that Jesus will make a person want to change ? It has to come from the person itself, not some mythical figure that makes that person change. What, in reward for not murdering ppl he gets adopted by god and jesus ? Thats pathetic. Well, maybe that person shouldn't have killed in the first place than he wouldn't have to 'change' himself, would he ?

I also don't think Jesus Christ went around to change murderers into innocent sheep all of a sudden just through his presence aikimac. Sometimes you guys read way too much into this 'god' like presence he seems to have had. He was a simple man, nothing more. And that is what makes Jonmonks quote in my mind not "brilliant" at all (except for in your eyes)and just a simple logical thought. Of course for someone who follows exactly his and gods words though I can imagine a couple of sentences like that must sound like it came from the bible or from Jesus himself and I don't think Jonmonks ego is quite that high that he sees himself in such a position.

Christian

[thepunisher]

Yes, that was the line that I was referring to. Punisher would not forgive, but God would. As Jonmonk pointed out, God's forgiveness is motivation to the sinner to repent, but Punisher's lack of forgiveness is no motivation to repent.

If forgiveness is a mark of love, and I believe it is, then on the love scale God beats Punisher, because God is offering more love than Punisher.


Aikimac, I would appreciate if you would not make this personal by putting me into place of a general human consensus. I could imagine not many human beings would forgive a murderer, just look at September 11.th, the London bombings and the uproar against islam because of that.In your very own country-the US-ppl get executed on the electric chair for committing murders nearly every week. That shows alot of unforgiveness to me and especially considering that some of those very ppl who uproared and were angry at islam probably went to church every Sunday. We humans aren't a forgiving kind, if you haven't noticed yet. Revenge in fact seems to be something that keeps most of us alive. Someone does something to you, what is your first thought ? How can I get him/her back. Most ppl think those thoughts. And god makes no difference on that otherwise why would a supposedly god-loving GWB declare war on a country to please his ppl ?

And I don't think god gives out alot of love at all, if he can't even "forgive" some atheists for not believing in him and instead promising 'hell' to them for not believing in him at the end of their life that shows more lack of forgiveness than I could possibly show a murderer. Like I said, if his scale is already so low in not accepting homosexuals, other religions or atheists/agonists why should he show love in forgiving a murderer. Makes complete sense to me.

Christian

[murphy81]

The fact that I'm breathing now is evidence enough for me that God exists. :cool:

Completely agree with the above - The pure fact that I am alive and on this planet, is enough for me to believe in God. I dont get into the nitty gritty of it all, but was bought up as a Catholic to believe, and I do believe. My Sister was bought up the same as me, but she does NOT believe.

At the end of the day, its your own personal opinion and feelings on how this world works, and whether you believe or not.

Im not interested in whether this any "proof" if whether God exists or not - I have all the proof that I need

[thepunisher]

Completely agree with the above - The pure fact that I am alive and on this planet, is enough for me to believe in God. I dont get into the nitty gritty of it all, but was bought up as a Catholic to believe, and I do believe. My Sister was bought up the same as me, but she does NOT believe.

Well, lets say you were brought up differently could you imagine believing that scientific evolution brought you onto this planet and not some higher being called god ? Because to be honest, you should thank your parents love that you are alive and breathing, not god.

Christian

[murphy81]

Well, lets say you were brought up differently could you imagine believing that scientific evolution brought you onto this planet and not some higher being called god ? Because to be honest, you should thank your parents love that you are alive and breathing, not god.

Christian


Yeh true, you'd thank your parents for putting you on this planet, as they would theirs, and so on, but at the start of mankind, who would you thank for starting the planet, mankind, etc? And with Adam and Eve, they shared their love, but who do they thank?

[thepunisher]

Yeh true, you'd thank your parents for putting you on this planet, as they would theirs, and so on, but at the start of mankind, who would you thank for starting the planet, mankind, etc? And with Adam and Eve, they shared their love, but who do they thank?

I don't think I would be able to thank anyone because its hard thanking a couple of atoms, molecules, water, etc. to find to one another, is it ? Maybe I should thank chemistry and biology ? And concerning Adam and Eve: Do you know they even existed ? I doubt they did, especially the way they are described in the bible. The first human being was supposed to have come from the country of Africa. And I can imagine even you know that the first human looked nothing like the way humans are portrayed in the bible- an example, neanderthals.

Christian

[Moony]

Most evolutionist theories that I hear imply that evolutionists think that everything is more or less random...I guess that's not the case with many??? Sorry. My fault.

Quote by Aegis: "ok atoms don't orbit a nucleus. At the very basic level, you are taught that electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons, but that's not correct.

Quote by jujitsuka07: I have never heard this theory

Quote by Aegis: You've never heard of atomic theory? I thought you were the one who brought it up in the first place?

No, no...I mean that I never heard that the theory that electrons orbiting a proton & neutron nucleus is not correct.

I'm not saying that you can't comment on what I write...I'm just saying if you see it as foolish, do yourself a favor and don't raise your blood pressure over something I say. Again, I am not infallible. To avoid further potential loss of face to anyone, I think it wise to bow out for now, and offer my sincere appologies to anyone I offended.

What Aegis is on about is the difference between the model where electons orbit around a nucleus of protons and neutrons and the quantum sheel theory for electrons surounding the same nucleus. The planetary orbital model is technically obselete as acience disproved that long ago, however that does not mean it's invalid for teaching the basics to kids in school.

The quantum subshells, as discribed in VSEPR theory, are one up from that and replace it as the working model. Oh look a link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Moony

[CKava]

its been proven by criminal records that even murderers that have adopted god will still kill again.
Who in particular are you referring to here? Since I imagine there exists a large amount of evidence of murderers who have repented for what they have done after finding faith I don't see your point as being particulrly convincing. Religion can A) have little to no effect on some people and B) cause a dramatic life changing effect on others. The existence of A does not in anyway invalidate the likelihood of B.

I also don't think Jesus Christ went around to change murderers into innocent sheep all of a sudden just through his presence aikimac.
The whole jist of Jesus' teachings seem to have been forgiving sinners and getting them to change their behaviour I again don't see why you feathers are so ruffled by Christians suggesting that Christianity might promote this kind of change.

We humans aren't a forgiving kind, if you haven't noticed yet. Revenge in fact seems to be something that keeps most of us alive.
I strongly disagree here, our immediate emotional reaction might be for revenge but humans aren't necessarily ruled by their emotional reactions and in fact if all humans did follow your creed there would be no hope for violence to end in any area's of the world. Speaking from my own experience the troubles in Northern Ireland would have had much less hope of ending if families of victims did not speak out and ask for no retaliation yet they frequently do. Religions promoting the value of forgiveness are the reason often quoted by such people who find themselves the victims of violence and yet offer forgiveness instead of demanding retalliation.

Well, lets say you were brought up differently could you imagine believing that scientific evolution brought you onto this planet and not some higher being called god?
This is an unnecessary choice. One can believe in scientific evolution and still believe that their existence was ordained by some higher being.

And I can imagine even you know that the first human looked nothing like the way humans are portrayed in the bible- an example, neanderthals.
You might be interested to know that recent studies have gathered evidence which rather convincingly supports that Neanderthals were a seperate species rather than a sub species Homo sapiens. Which is at present the prevailing majority view. There's some debate on the issue and it doesn't negate your view that early ancestors of humans did not look like modern day humans but I thought you might find this interesting.

[bomb_disneyland]

Completely agree with the above - The pure fact that I am alive and on this planet, is enough for me to believe in God. I dont get into the nitty gritty of it all, but was bought up as a Catholic to believe, and I do believe. My Sister was bought up the same as me, but she does NOT believe.

At the end of the day, its your own personal opinion and feelings on how this world works, and whether you believe or not.

Im not interested in whether this any "proof" if whether God exists or not - I have all the proof that I need
You can't prove i exist outside of your imagination, just as i can't prove you exist outside of mine..

In fact you have a pretty hard time proving anything. Shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.. until somethuing else comes along (don't know where, when or what but it MIGHT happen)

so how you're going to prove an ineffible being who refuses to show himself is real, this i gotta see..

Seems to me religion ios just a bunch of people arguing about who's imaginary friend is better.

[aikiMac]

Aikimac, I would appreciate if you would not make this personal by putting me into place of a general human consensus. I could imagine not many human beings would forgive a murderer, just look at September 11.th, the London bombings and the uproar against islam because of that.
But God forgives murderers.
That was the point.
You know, Easter is coming up. Jesus forgave his murderers while he was still nailed to the wood.

Ckava made good points in #172.


Revenge in fact seems to be something that keeps most of us alive. Someone does something to you, what is your first thought ? How can I get him/her back. Most ppl think those thoughts. And god makes no difference on that otherwise why would a supposedly god-loving GWB declare war on a country to please his ppl ?
No difference, really? Have a look into the context of Capt Ann's signature. The Elliot family is not unique. There are others like them.

[thepunisher]

But God forgives murderers.
That was the point.
You know, Easter is coming up. Jesus forgave his murderers while he was still nailed to the wood.

Ckava made good points in #172.


Aikimac, just because YOU believe god forgives murderers how do you know he really does ?Have you met him in person ? Has he told you ? It might have been the point but it was frankly something you can't even discuss with someone as highly religious as you seem to be. Just because that is what you read in the bible doesn't necessarily mean its true.

Yes, Ckava did make good points in post #172 but he also made me realize once again its completley and utterly pointless discussing religion with ppl. Because yes, that is what it is. Religious ppl instantly go at non-believers for them not believing and try to dig up evidence for god and non-believers frankly waste their time even trying to talk some sense into them. Even if thats not their real purpose.

This is my last post on here for a while. I'm getting tired of talking in circles.

Christian

[CKava]

Religious ppl instantly go at non-believers for them not believing and try to dig up evidence for god and non-believers frankly waste their time even trying to talk some sense into them.
You do know Im not religious, right? That aside I don't know if I agree Christian personally I quite enjoy the discussions on here. Sometimes they end up a bit too circular but overall I think this is one section of the board which contains some of the most well thought out replies. For some bizarre reason my understanding of science has also increased through taking part in religious discussions... odd. Anyway, if these kind of debates get your goat then maybe a breaks not a bad idea.

[aikiMac]

Aikimac, just because YOU believe god forgives murderers how do you know he really does? Have you met him in person? Has he told you? It might have been the point but it was frankly something you can't even discuss with someone as highly religious as you seem to be. Just because that is what you read in the bible doesn't necessarily mean its true.
What are the assumptions and lemmas that lead to my conclusions? You could learn to restate them in terms that I would accept. You know, expand your mind, learn new things, learn about 1/3 of the world's people. (The last statistic I read said 1/3 of the world is Christian. Whatever the number.) There's people on MAP willing to answer polite questions.

In my estimation that is better than turning into what you say that you hate: one-sided, closed-minded, deaf to an alternative point of view held by such a significant percentage of the world, and evangelizing your beliefs in internet threads that have the word "Bible" or "Christian" in the title. I hope you don't turn into that.

Because of friendly MAP discussions I, for one, understand people of other faiths much better than I did before. It's been good for me. :o


Yes, Ckava did make good points in post #172 but he also made me realize once again its completley and utterly pointless discussing religion with ppl. Because yes, that is what it is. Religious ppl instantly go at non-believers for them not believing and try to dig up evidence for god and non-believers frankly waste their time even trying to talk some sense into them. Even if thats not their real purpose.
:confused: I thought I was getting along fine with non-Christians. I'm sorry to have hurt you. That was never my intention. Did I actually "instantly go at non-believers for them not believing and try to dig up evidence for god" ? If I did, I don't remember doing it. Sorry if I did. :eek: Dude, I didn't mean to. Wow. Big apologies.

(You know, a 3rd party unbiased observer might have reason to say that you "instantly go at believers for them believing and try to dig up evidence for no god." He might. :o )

[Aegis]

You can't prove i exist outside of your imagination, just as i can't prove you exist outside of mine..

In fact you have a pretty hard time proving anything. Shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.. until somethuing else comes along (don't know where, when or what but it MIGHT happen)

so how you're going to prove an ineffible being who refuses to show himself is real, this i gotta see..

Seems to me religion ios just a bunch of people arguing about who's imaginary friend is better.
Now there's a postmodernist...

It's a reasonably point though, which is why science doesn't work with proof, it works with evidence and parsimony.

[tbubb1]

Aikimac, just because YOU believe god forgives murderers how do you know he really does ?Have you met him in person ? Has he told you ? It might have been the point but it was frankly something you can't even discuss with someone as highly religious as you seem to be. Just because that is what you read in the bible doesn't necessarily mean its true.

Punisher, just because YOU believe in atoms how do you know they really exist? Have you seen them with your own eyes? Just because that is what you read and learn in science classes doesnt necessarily mean its true.

Granted, I believe in atoms and that's a really bad example, but everyone does the same thing! I was taught that Charlamagne existed once and was a cool dude. Sitting here at my pc I have no proof of this. I haven't met him, he didn't talk to me. I haven't seen his remains or anything he's done or left behind (like a monument or statue or something).

Your argument seems really weak to me.

Why must you challenge EVERYTHING? bomb disneyland comes in sharing his point of view and you jump all over him? I think because I'm 16 I'm allowed to say this:


<<No, for future reference you are not allowed to say that - Aegis>>

I'm sure that didn't mean anything to you... and maybe I'll get in trouble? And that prob discredits anything I say from now on but whatever.

It had to be said :rolleyes:
Please stop being closeminded.

[Aegis]

bomb_disneyland has made one post and I was the only one who addressed it. I assume you meant someone else, as otherwise I have to conclude that I was the one you just insulted ;)

[Sparkle]

Here are some random thoughts adressing some of the statements people have said lately.

The "pressuring" of a religion. If you believe you know the truth, and you love other people enough to want them to realize it and be saved, won't you try to share it with them. Now, of course there are people who do it in a way that it shouldn't be done. For example, doing it by force. Converting to a (any) religion is a choice by the individual, but sometimes people are looking for something and need somebody to give them that extra push in the right direction ( not a physical one! )

A converted murderer becoming a Christian. Well Punisher, there is a big topic adressed in the Bible through some of Jesus' Parables. It deals with the sincerity of the individuals heart. Jesus warns in these parables that there will be people who walk like a Christian, talk like a Christian, dress and eat like a Christian . . . . but aren't. The heart of an individual isn't so easy to understand, but God knows it. If a murder becomes a Christian and he's a true Christian, I doubt he will murder again.

On another note, like jonmonk has caught on to, you cannot have Jesus without his teachings, and you cannot have his teachings without him. Or, you can't be saved just by faith, and you can't be saved just by works, it's all or nothing baby. :woo: . Another difficult thing that seems to be misunderstood is that you cannot bring yourself to God. "It has to come from the person itself, not some mythical figure that makes that person change." - Punisher. God has to bring you to him. But, you can expose yourself to God. Now this sounds crazy, I know . . . but look at it this way instead:

You see a picture of a woman. Can you fall in love with the woman from the picture, no. If you take youself and expose yourself to her, you see here every day, you talk to her, become friends with her . . . then you can fall in love with her. Now, did you have anything to do with the falling in love part? No. You exposed yourself to her, yes, but it was something in her that brought you to love her (not lust . . . love). Same thing works with God in my opinion.

[tbubb1]

bomb_disneyland has made one post and I was the only one who addressed it. I assume you meant someone else, as otherwise I have to conclude that I was the one you just insulted

Crap, I mean murphy

[Topher]

Yes, that was the line that I was referring to. Punisher would not forgive, but God would. As Jonmonk pointed out, God's forgiveness is motivation to the sinner to repent, but Punisher's lack of forgiveness is no motivation to repent.
So God would forgive a man for cheating on his wife. Or committing rape/murder or other heinous crimes.

What is the use of Hell then?

Well, play fair. Instruction in Christianity is everywhere available. There is no excuse for not knowing the essential points of the religion.
Of which there are many forms all of whom claim to be correct, right down to the fundamental issues.

Is there a question in there? You honestly lost me dude.
I was asking which branch of beliefs/assumptions is correct. Some of the beliefs are quite different, which means they all cannot be correct.

Pffffttt!
Ya, and the Pope is not Catholic. :rolleyes: Whatever.
Show me the post where I spoke a like I knew the answer.

Assume for a few seconds that the good you do today does not cancel out the bad that you did yesterday.
When this assumption is granted, the "special role," as you put it, makes sense.
I don’t need to assume. This was my point. No matter what a murder does in his life after committing the crime, it won’t be cancelled out. With Christianity, God would simply forgive a killer and allow them into heaven, essentially meaning someone can kill without any concern over “ultimate judgement”

I don’t see how Jesus/God’s role makes sense, despite already having the view that good acts don’t cancel previous bad ones. Care to explain?

[Topher]

Oh and Im with Aikimac at this point the extreme atheist side is coming across as pig headed as a bunch of creationists!
Well I would see myself as more of a weak atheist. I’m certainly not close minded that there isn’t a God/creator. I just don’t like the illogical arguments for one. Or for that matter the fact people argue a specific God, with such specific details.

At the moment I’m just pointing out the problems with the current argument.

As much as I reply to these topics, I actually don't want people to deconvert from their faiths and become atheists like me, I just don't like people using bad logic or (sometimes even worse) science to back up their beliefs when it is clearly a matter of faith and nothing more (or less for that matter)
Well said.

Most evolutionist theories that I hear imply that evolutionists think that everything is more or less random...I guess that's not the case with many??? Sorry. My fault.
Many? More like none.

[aikiMac]

So God would forgive a man for cheating on his wife. Or committing rape/murder or other heinous crimes.

What is the use of Hell then?
For someone who denies that he has done wrong, or, asserts that the good he does tomorrow will make up for the bad that he did yesterday.

Both positions are contrary to an essential and very basic belief in Christianity. If you continue to refuse to accept that belief for the sake of discussion, there is NO point in you asking questions. You're actually being obnoxious by asking questions without first granting such basic assumptions in the conversation.


I was asking which branch of beliefs/assumptions is correct. Some of the beliefs are quite different, which means they all cannot be correct.
See post #153. You and I were talking about the assumption I just mentioned up there ^^^. In that context your question made no sense.


Of which there are many forms all of whom claim to be correct, right down to the fundamental issues.
Wrong.


Show me the post where I spoke a like I knew the answer.
The quote right above this one is an example.

And very recently you acted like a know-it-all in the thread concerning which ten commandments God wrote on stone tablets, and how many stone tablets there were, but you didn't really know what you were talking about. Keep reading and you'll see another example.


I don’t need to assume. This was my point. No matter what a murder does in his life after committing the crime, it won’t be cancelled out. With Christianity, God would simply forgive a killer and allow them into heaven, essentially meaning someone can kill without any concern over “ultimate judgement”
Well golly, here's another example of you telling all the world what Christianity is or isn't! 'Course you're wrong again, but, who cares, right?


I don’t see how Jesus/God’s role makes sense, despite already having the view that good acts don’t cancel previous bad ones. Care to explain?
Nope. I do not want to explain something to someone whose cup is full, and I just pointed out four examples of your cup being full.

[CKava]

Many? More like none.
I'm a little confused at this point because I for one thought the evolution process did involve a certain amount of randomness i.e. in the random mutations caused by the miscopying of DNA. Of course its not random in the sense we know why it happens but it is random in the sense that it is not controlled by any sentient forces. Its random in the same way the roll of a dice is random, we know it has to land on one of six sides but which side it will land on each time is random and influenced by so many factors as to make it unpredictable.

Evolution is a natural process which posesses no will as such I can't see how it is anything other than random?

[BendzR]

The result of Evolution is random, as it is not predictable what a species might change into.

The process of Evolution is very specific and the "machine" that is natural selection is anything but random. It works in a very specific way. While it may use "random factors" (such as mutations, conditions, etc) as part of its process, we do know the process always involves the same similar type of "random factors".

We can be quite specific about which part of the evolutionary process does what and why and it is very specific and ordered.

[Moony]

Yepyep, all this is good. The mutations and their outcomes are random, but the selection process is generally not. If it's a detrimental mutation it is selected against, if it's a benign one that doesn't really matter much it'll float around for a while and may or may not increase in numbers. If it's a benificial change it will bloom through the species as having it in your genotype will make your chances of survival better.

But this is in a simplified one mutation at a time situation, which isn't necessarilly going to happen. Your more likely to get randum bundles of new/different mutations in an organism and it's the overall effect of them that dictates if the creature will live or die. A new born creature may have the best available genes for hunting it's food down. But if it's got a mutation that means it can't break down food at the molecular level (it's biochemistry is shot) it's not going to last long enough to pass on it's favourable food getting skills.

Moony

[CKava]

All good info you two :).

[bomb_disneyland]

Why must you challenge EVERYTHING? bomb disneyland comes in sharing his point of view and you jump all over him? I think because I'm 16 I'm allowed to say this:



It's only by challenging everything that we've discovered how to make fire, that the earth was round(ish) and not the centre of the universe (apologies to the flat earth society). If you never challenge anything then you get the status quo.

possibly.. see my theory on theories

[tekkengod]

Both positions are contrary to an essential and very basic belief in Christianity. If you continue to refuse to accept that belief for the sake of discussion, there is NO point in you asking questions. You're actually being obnoxious by asking questions without first granting such basic assumptions in the conversation.

Wrong

hes just looking for your validity it sounds like.

so there AREN'T many branches, thats news to me. :eek:

[jonmonk]

On another note, like jonmonk has caught on to, you cannot have Jesus without his teachings, and you cannot have his teachings without him. Or, you can't be saved just by faith, and you can't be saved just by works, it's all or nothing baby. :woo: . Another difficult thing that seems to be misunderstood is that you cannot bring yourself to God. "It has to come from the person itself, not some mythical figure that makes that person change." - Punisher. God has to bring you to him. But, you can expose yourself to God.Yeah, that post was a good one Sparkle at the very least because it shows why the perception that Christianity is flawed simply because 'bad' people can go to heaven is not necessarily a valid one.

What really hooked me about it was more than that though. There are a number aspects of Christian doctrine, as it was taught to me and / or as I understood it, that I disagree with but I increasingly find that by shifting the words around a bit or making having a slightly different take on the same ideas they seem to slot much more easily into my own spiritual viewpoint. This was another classic one. I'm not saying that my thoughts represent what Christians think or that what I think is any better. It just sits better with where I am today.

Your post triggered a chain of thought that went something along the lines of:

What does it mean that Jesus and his teachings are inseperable? What is Jesus to me, a non-Christian today? Perhaps, Jesus today IS his teaching. Christians tell me that Jesus is alive and I suspect most take that literally. Is there a way in which Jesus can be alive today that fits into my world view though when I believe he was a man? Well, yes. If I'm saying that for me, Jesus is the sum of his teaching, then I can't deny that his teaching is alive. As AikiMac has pointed out, he's everywhere... wait, Christians say that too. Now when a Christian says to me that Jesus is alive, instead of going 'eh?' I can say, 'you know, in a way, I think you're right.' Again, Christians say that in order to go to heaven you must accept Jesus into your heart. Ok, now that I think that today, Jesus is his teaching, if I want to make spiritual progress, I do that by taking his teaching to heart. Now it makes sense, I get that.

So the next question. Why do non-Christians go to hell when they might be really good people or they never heard of Christianity? Previously I might have thought yeah, good question. But this hooks neatly into this new view though doesn't it (albeit not Christian doctrine as I understand it)?

If Jesus today is his teaching and we have to take his teaching to heart, what if someone else taught the same stuff and we took that to heart instead?

Now we have little or no difference between Christian spirituality and let's say for the sake of argument Buddhism or Islam provided the teaching is still good teaching and providing we take it to heart.

There's more but don't worry, I'm not going to bore you with it here :)

[aikiMac]

so there AREN'T many branches, thats news to me. :eek:
Read the entire sentence: "Of which there are many forms all of whom claim to be correct, right down to the fundamental issues."

The fundamental issues are the same among the many forms/branches.

But, of course, atheists know more about Christian doctrine than the Christians know, and atheists are smarter than Christians, so I shouldn't be speaking on this.

[aikiMac]

Jonmonk -- post #192 -- Very good.
Have you taken it the next level of looking specifically at what Jesus taught, as contrasted with the vague "Jesus meek and mild, love everybody, be nice to your neighbor" lessons? Comparative theology can get interesting and the theology of Jesus can get interesting. Well, it can get interesting if you're into that sort of thing. ;)

[jonmonk]

Jonmonk -- post #192 -- Very good.
Have you taken it the next level of looking specifically at what Jesus taught, as contrasted with the vague "Jesus meek and mild, love everybody, be nice to your neighbor" lessons?Probably not as far as I could / should if I'm being honest. Got any pointers per chance?

On a different note. One passage that has been mulling in my mind for a while is John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.I'd be interested in your take on that. What is meant by that passage in particular the phrase 'The Word'?

[aikiMac]

Probably not as far as I could / should if I'm being honest. Got any pointers per chance?
To the best that you can, put yourself into that culture.
The way we talk today is a reflection of our culture today. We make allusions to tv shows, movies, songs, books, and events that shape our culture. Examples off the top of my head: Why is Madonna the "Material Girl" ? Who or what is a "soup nazi" ? Why will an American parent never name his boy Benedict? And what does the Flintstone's theme song mean by the phrase "we'll have a gay ol time" ?

People have always spoken and written in the words of their culture, and they always will. If you ignore that, you'll never get the whole message. You might even get the wrong message out of what you read or hear.


On a different note. One passage that has been mulling in my mind for a while is John 1:1I'd be interested in your take on that. What is meant by that passage in particular the phrase 'The Word'?
The best that I understand it, John was speaking in Greek terms for Greek people living in a first-century culture. The word translated "word" includes within it the idea of the ultimate mind and force. It's the creative power that formed the world. John connected this Greek belief with the Jewish creation claims made in Genesis, Job, Isaiah, Psalms, and perhaps other Old Testament books. The creation claims that John here makes correspond perfectly with the creation claims in the Old Testament. Thus, he's stating Jewish beliefs in Greek terms. Note his reference to Moses even.

Some people believe that mind preceded matter. Some people believe that matter preceded mind. Through the use of that Greek word translated "word," John asserts that mind preceded matter. At about verse 14 he asserts that this ultimate mind, this "word" force that created the whole universe, was exactly the human being Jesus. You don't have to be a theologian to connect the dots: John was asserting in Greek terms for people familiar with Greek culture, that Jesus was God.

Whether John was correct or not is wholly separate from the "what" of what he was saying. I appreciate that you appreciate that difference.

[tbubb1]

Great explanation, Aikimac. :cool:

[tekkengod]

Read the entire sentence: "Of which there are many forms all of whom claim to be correct, right down to the fundamental issues."

The fundamental issues are the same among the many forms/branches.

But, of course, atheists know more about Christian doctrine than the Christians know, and atheists are smarter than Christians, so I shouldn't be speaking on this.

well in the "context" {theres that word again,} it sounded like thats what you meant, so for once i'm guilty.

[Topher]

I'm a little confused at this point because I for one thought the evolution process did involve a certain amount of randomness i.e. in the random mutations caused by the miscopying of DNA. Of course its not random in the sense we know why it happens but it is random in the sense that it is not controlled by any sentient forces. Its random in the same way the roll of a dice is random, we know it has to land on one of six sides but which side it will land on each time is random and influenced by so many factors as to make it unpredictable.

Evolution is a natural process which posesses no will as such I can't see how it is anything other than random?
I wasn't refering to evolution theory, i was refering to jujitsuka07's comment that most evolutionists think "everything is pretty much random." When corrected he states: "I guess that's not the case with many???". I've not heard of any biologists who think evolution is a random process in the sense he was implying, hence my reply. Most creationists for example tend to argue that the eye could not have been made by random chance, a belief which no biologists hold.

Two points of evolution:
1. A random mutation happens.
2. Any mutations which are a benefit are carried on via natural selection, a process which is is anything BUT random.

[CKava]

See what you were getting at now Homer confusion abated, thanks for clarifying ;).

[Topher]

For someone who denies that he has done wrong, or, asserts that the good he does tomorrow will make up for the bad that he did yesterday.
Then that would contradict the claim that God is all loving and forgiving.

Both positions are contrary to an essential and very basic belief in Christianity. If you continue to refuse to accept that belief for the sake of discussion, there is NO point in you asking questions. You're actually being obnoxious by asking questions without first granting such basic assumptions in the conversation.
Sorry, but I will not grant such assumptions. Anything which requires such an assumption to make any sense doesn’t have anything in my view. If it can’t say anything as it is, it doesn’t say anything at all.

See post #153. You and I were talking about the assumption I just mentioned up there ^^^. In that context your question made no sense.
No I’m talking about branches and leading people of Christianity which say totally different things, such as the Catholic Church accepting evolution, while others denying it. Some saying the Bible is literally true, while others saying its just metaphorical. Some say the bible can be personally interpreted, other saying it cannot.

With such conflicting views, which is correct?

Wrong.
So every branch of Christianity is the same, and what I said above is false? If it is please logically counter each above claim.

The quote right above this one is an example.
That is merely an observation. If it's wrong, prove it.

And very recently you acted like a know-it-all in the thread concerning which ten commandments God wrote on stone tablets, and how many stone tablets there were, but you didn't really know what you were talking about. Keep reading and you'll see another example.
Excuse me. That view came from an ex Christian, not me. The Bible clearly states 10 different commandments.

Well golly, here's another example of you telling all the world what Christianity is or isn't! 'Course you're wrong again, but, who cares, right?
What! Are you for real? :rolleyes:

That comment of mine was natural conclusion of your argument for god sake. It was argued that God is all loving and all forgiving, therefore my comment was a conclusion of that.

If that attribute of God is correct, he would forgive a murder/sinner by default as the buck would have been passed over to Jesus would it have not?

So, if my comment was incorrect, so was your original argument for that was a consequence of it. Oh golly! :o

Nope. I do not want to explain something to someone whose cup is full, and I just pointed out four examples of your cup being full.
My ‘cup’ is far from full, but nevertheless; it has an evidence/reason/logic filter so bs can’t get in. If anyone’s cup is full, it’s those who act on faith and faith alone.

I think you need to read my comments again as they were either conclusions of your arguments or mere observations. Feel free to PROVE them wrong rather than make erroneous attacks :rolleyes:

[Sparkle]

If Jesus today is his teaching and we have to take his teaching to heart, what if someone else taught the same stuff and we took that to heart instead?

Now we have little or no difference between Christian spirituality and let's say for the sake of argument Buddhism or Islam provided the teaching is still good teaching and providing we take it to heart.

There's more but don't worry, I'm not going to bore you with it here :)

Forgive me if I am taking this completely in another dirrection from what you ment for it, and ignored a bunch ( as you see I haven't quoted everything you've said . . . . ).

If Jesus today is his teaching and we have to take his teaching to heart . . . what if somebody else taught the same stuff and we took that to heart. Well, there are people who teach the same stuff, and there are people who take it to heart. The problem is, they don't regard Jesus as rising back from the dead after dying for their sins and conquered death and came back to life. Thus we come back to my "all or nothing thing." If you don't accept Jesus, you don't go to heaven, but if you accept Jesus and go about your normal ol' sinful ways, then have you really accepted him in your heart?

If one means to change, they will change their ways by the one whom they wish to change it by. People can say all they want that they accept Jesus, but don't follow his teaching. But that would be a big hint on them not actually being a Christian wouldn't it? There are parables from Jesus that adress this. If you would like I'll tell you which ones they are (and steal some of the explanations from a book I've read on them : P). There is a difference between Christian spirituality, and other spirituality. ( I wont use any sort of euphanism here ) Us Christians believe in the truth, in the only true God. We are not supposed to be self righteous and be good by our own standards, or make God bend to what we want him to be.

In regards to good men going to hell, well . . . that's a discussion for another thread because there are tons of things to hit. Maybe that thread wont take a Christian bashing approach though.


On the many different Christian perspectives . . . . if it doesn't have the main message, then I wouldn't look at it as being Christian. If the perspective holds true to believing in Jesus and following his teachings, then a lot of the stuff doesn't really matter because they wont stray too far, and if they do it shouldn't be in a horrible, depraved way. What matters is the message. Here is a great analogy. What is martial arts . . . fighting. It's nothing more then that. Now, do we have a TON of different styles that teach the same thing? Yes. Do we need them, no. But we have them. So, all in all, if the branch holds true to the tree, then it isn't wrong. Yeah, you'll disagree with some of the stuff, but then maybe you shouldn't be sitting on that particular branch eh?

[aikiMac]

Sorry, but I will not grant such assumptions.
It's fine to challenge an initial assumption. It's fine to challenge a lemma drawn from that assumption. But once the challenge is over, you cannot in logic or politeness both (a) object when that lemma is used to support another theory, and (b) ask for an explanation of that other theory. If you do (b) you can't do (a), because (b) depends upon (a). Neither logic nor politeness will allow it.

To insist on doing both is to ignore the earlier discussions, and to ignore an earlier discussion is intentional ignorance. It's the same as saying, "I don't want to learn." This is the halmark of a closed mind. It is also an act of terrible disrespect for the person to whom you ask questions, because you're literally saying to the other person, "I know you spoke to me earlier, and even answered my own questions eariler, but I wasn't listening to you. I wasn't listening to the words you spoke to me."

You have been doing both (a) and (b), Homer, over and over and over again. You did it just now in post #201 even. To your credit you have established that Christians do not have a monopoly on closed-mindedness. In a way that is good.

[jonmonk]

No I’m talking about branches and leading people of Christianity which say totally different things, such as the Catholic Church accepting evolution, while others denying it. Some saying the Bible is literally true, while others saying its just metaphorical. Some say the bible can be personally interpreted, other saying it cannot.I think the point that aikiMac is making here (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that all branches of Christianity recognise the same core belief. This core belief is what defines Christianity. There are also a bunch of views, ideas or beliefs that surround that core belief and it's these that define the various denominations however, they all share the same core. When you talk about things like whether or not the Bible should be taken literally, this is not an issue that defines Christianity, it's an issue that defines denomination within Christianity. IMO Sparkle's MA analogy was a good one. I hope it doesn't get ignored here.

Without wishing to open a horrendous can 'o worms, I think it should also be noted here that not all scientists agree with each other either and that's seen as a good thing because it provokes debate, sparks new research and keeps 'em honest. All do however, work within the framework of the scientific method and so they are all scientists.
People have always spoken and written in the words of their culture, and they always will. If you ignore that, you'll never get the whole message. You might even get the wrong message out of what you read or hear.Thanks, I agree and I'll try to bear that in mind.
Whether John was correct or not is wholly separate from the "what" of what he was saying. I appreciate that you appreciate that difference.;) thanks for the vote of confidence.
Re. 'The Word' (aka the Wrod when I'm typing slower than my brain is thinking!) There's something about that that I find really interesting... though I'm not entirely sure what it is :) Thanks for your reply, I'm going to think about that one.
Forgive me if I am taking this completely in another dirrection from what you ment for it, and ignored a bunch ( as you see I haven't quoted everything you've said . . . . ). No worries mate. After all I kinda did the same with your post so it only seems fair!

Your post was interesting and I liked the branch holding onto the tree bit. It relates well both the issues of thinking within the Christian church but also on the level of what we're discussing about teaching and acceptance of teaching.

I guess a lot of this comes down to where you perceive the branch to stop and the tree to start. What I mean by that is, some might decide that the tree consists simply of 'do good stuff' and that core Christian belief is one of many branches. On the other hand, others might believe core Christian teaching to be the tree and Christian denominations to be the branches (in which case it's clear that other religions cannot be attached to the tree). There would presumably be loads in between the two as well. It begs the question, why does a person come to the beliefs they come to? Why do we not all sit on the same branch? Is this where you're coming from aikiMac when you talk about comparative religion and the importance of understanding the context / culture from which belief comes?

[aikiMac]

I think the point that aikiMac is making here (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that all branches of Christianity recognise the same core belief. This core belief is what defines Christianity. There are also a bunch of views, ideas or beliefs that surround that core belief and it's these that define the various denominations however, they all share the same core. When you talk about things like whether or not the Bible should be taken literally, this is not an issue that defines Christianity, it's an issue that defines denomination within Christianity. IMO Sparkle's MA analogy was a good one. I hope it doesn't get ignored here.
That's it exactly! :D


Is this where you're coming from aikiMac when you talk about comparative religion and the importance of understanding the context / culture from which belief comes?
That's certainly part of it, definitely. You're thinking my thoughts now, speaking my language. :eek: Scary!

Additionally, culture makes a difference even independently of any comparative theology discussion, just because of the way people talk and because of the things they do. Example: Somewhere in the gospels Jesus says we should forgive people who do wrong to us. Forgiving them will be like putting hot coals on their heads, he says. I read that circa 2000 AD and go, "Wow, that's weird. :confused: " And I go, "I guess he means they'll feel guilty and the guilt will burn them up."

But consider that a person in the first century didn't have electric heaters or gas heaters to warm up his house on a cold morning. If he was lucky his fire would last the whole night, and he could stir hot coals in the morning to get it going again. On an unlucky morning he would have to go outside, walk to a neighbors house, ask for some hot coals, and carry the coals back to his house.

Now, how do you suppose he carried those hot coals, huh? ;) On his head, in a pot. I've seen pictures of this in National Geographic but I never thought about it until just last month, when someone told me about life in the first century AD.

Boy, did I miss the message there, all because I missed the cultural context!

[thepunisher]

It's fine to challenge an initial assumption. It's fine to challenge a lemma drawn from that assumption. But once the challenge is over, you cannot in logic or politeness both (a) object when that lemma is used to support another theory, and (b) ask for an explanation of that other theory. If you do (b) you can't do (a), because (b) depends upon (a). Neither logic nor politeness will allow it.

I wasn't aware their was an aikimac rule book people had to follow while having discussions on here. Of course, knowing there is one for you makes it of course easier for you to diffuse or disinterest ppl from having an actual discussion with you...for example, if I had someone listing me this kind of response above I would simply tell:"Are you even interested in discussing or is your only aim to win the argument ?" And then leave them alone.

Christian

[aikiMac]

for example, if I had someone listing me this kind of response above I would simply tell:"Are you even interested in discussing or is your only aim to win the argument ?"
That's my point. Well said. After answering the same question 17 times, you gotta step back and say, "Wait a minute, we already talked about this. My words are obviously falling on deaf ears."

Deaf ears just ain't cool, you know?

[Sparkle]

Lol, this keeps going around in circles . . . . but the circles ARE getting smaller. Maybe they'll dissapear. :woo:

[Topher]

It's fine to challenge an initial assumption. It's fine to challenge a lemma drawn from that assumption. But once the challenge is over, you cannot in logic or politeness both (a) object when that lemma is used to support another theory, and (b) ask for an explanation of that other theory. If you do (b) you can't do (a), because (b) depends upon (a). Neither logic nor politeness will allow it.
I don’t really know what you’re getting at here as a lemma is a proven proposition yet the points I was arguing against haven't proven one bit. And who said this "challenge" is over, and why?

What I do know however is while you’re arguing against my arguments; you’ve so far failed to refute any of them. :rolleyes: argumentum a silentio, tu quoque!

To insist on doing both is to ignore the earlier discussions, and to ignore an earlier discussion is intentional ignorance. It's the same as saying, "I don't want to learn." This is the halmark of a closed mind. It is also an act of terrible disrespect for the person to whom you ask questions, because you're literally saying to the other person, "I know you spoke to me earlier, and even answered my own questions eariler, but I wasn't listening to you. I wasn't listening to the words you spoke to me."

You have been doing both (a) and (b), Homer, over and over and over again. You did it just now in post #201 even. To your credit you have established that Christians do not have a monopoly on closed-mindedness. In a way that is good.
No, I posted logical and rational counter arguments to your claims. Nothing more.

Our earlier “discussions” would only have been useful had you answered my arguments. Maybe I must have missed the part when you refuted them. :confused: :rolleyes: All you have said is how I've “acted like a know-it-all,” and that I’m “telling all the world what Christianity is or isn't!” I’ve done neither of these so that, my friend, is both a straw man and ad hominem. Attack the real points!

What I have done is provide rational and logical conclusions based on your propositions/arguments which I’m still waiting for equally logical rebuttals. What you have done though is post numerous logical fallacies.

[Sparkle]

Homer man, it's not working. Not only has Aikimak giving you answers to your questions ( which I might add weren't the simple yes and no you were looking for ), other people have as well. Why don't you adress those instead of going on your rant of absolutely nothing?

You know, I went to a Gamers Assylum place; it's a place where a bunch of geeks get together and play on the computers there, all connected. Well, one prissy little know it all guy who had to be at least 20 something came in and started talking and talking and talking. He sounded like a little kid, acted like a little kid, and thought he knew EVERYTHING about gaming. Not only did he suck at the game he was playing, but he threw a little fit everytime things didn't go his way. It was quite ridiculous, and that Homer, is what you are reminding me of.

[Topher]

Homer man, it's not working. Not only has Aikimak giving you answers to your questions ( which I might add weren't the simple yes and no you were looking for ), other people have as well. Why don't you adress those instead of going on your rant of absolutely nothing?

You know, I went to a Gamers Assylum place; it's a place where a bunch of geeks get together and play on the computers there, all connected. Well, one prissy little know it all guy who had to be at least 20 something came in and started talking and talking and talking. He sounded like a little kid, acted like a little kid, and thought he knew EVERYTHING about gaming. Not only did he suck at the game he was playing, but he threw a little fit everytime things didn't go his way. It was quite ridiculous, and that Homer, is what you are reminding me of.
Sparky, seeing as you know eveything, please direct me to these arguments and i will be happry to see to them. I seems to have missed them :confused:

And btw, aikiMac is requesting I accept his claims, despite the lack of evidence supporting them, just so he can move onto the next stage of his argument.

From the Ten Commandments thread:
I expect that when you want a finished answer, that you will accept for the sake of my finished answer whatever lemmas I need to finish it.

Which as I replied in that thread, I will accept it, when he proves it. But it's a major fallacy to ask me to accept something without supporting evidence, just so he can continue his argument. Like i said, make the full argument regardless of my position on it, and if it's good, it will be accepted naturally. Simple as that.

[Sparkle]

Man Homer, that's a LOT of WORK! Work that I don't feel like doing at the moment : P. Maybe when I'm at school I'll take the time and do it, seeing as I'm stuck there with nothing to do most of the time anyways. But, if you would like, write down all of your questions and arguments on a piece of paper that you've stated, then go through Aik's, Jon's and my own replies to stuff and you just may find an answer to your questions, or something that will trigger you to ask a different question or even change your argument. You've gotten to the point where you are just yelling about how smart you are, how dumb we are, and how nobody has answered your questions.

[thepunisher]

That's my point. Well said. After answering the same question 17 times, you gotta step back and say, "Wait a minute, we already talked about this. My words are obviously falling on deaf ears."

Deaf ears just ain't cool, you know?

Well, aikimac, ever noticed in religion there is no TRUE answer ? Well, if that is the case who is the one "falling on deaf ears" here ? Certainly not homer he is just spinning the logic further. But you are because you only seem to want to know one answer and that is yours.

Make a proper response to his post, answer and maybe even prove (which I can assure you you can't !)you're right and then this discussion is over..and you're the winner. Question then is: Why even bother discussing it in the first place ?

Christian

[Sparkle]

:confused: Well, aikimac, ever noticed in religion there is no TRUE answer ? Well, if that is the case who is the one "falling on deaf ears" here ? Certainly not homer he is just spinning the logic further. But you are because you only seem to want to know one answer and that is yours.

Make a proper response to his post, answer and maybe even prove (which I can assure you you can't !)you're right and then this discussion is over..and you're the winner. Question then is: Why even bother discussing it in the first place ?

Christian

In religion there is no true answer . . . . :confused: . So you think all of us are just walking around wondering what's up or something?

Oh, and by the way, Aik's answers aren't really just HIS, there are a few million other people who hold the same foundation also.

[thepunisher]

:confused:

In religion there is no true answer . . . . :confused: . So you think all of us are just walking around wondering what's up or something?

No, actually in talking about religions there is no true answer. What you might believe another person might not, the religion you might like another person might disagree with and so on. There is more than one god and there is more than one kind of religion sparkle. And by the way sparkle, not to be offensive, but from someone like you I expected a bit more intelligent answer than the above. I thought you know everything.
:confused:

And by the way, just because aikimac might think he is right and he certainly is doing alot to constantly evade answering, it only shows that actually maybe homer is heading in the right direction. At one point you ppl will run out of answers to pure logic and whats your resort then ?

Christian

[Sparkle]

No, actually in talking about religions there is no true answer. What you might believe another person might not, the religion you might like another person might disagree with and so on. There is more than one god and there is more than one kind of religion sparkle. And by the way sparkle, not to be offensive, but from someone like you I expected a bit more intelligent answer than the above. I thought you know everything.
:confused:

And by the way, just because aikimac might think he is right and he certainly is doing alot to constantly evade answering, it only shows that actually maybe homer is heading in the right direction. At one point you ppl will run out of answers to pure logic and whats your resort then ?

Christian

Alright, do the same thing I suggested homer do. Write down all his questions, then go through all of the posts from those points and see if you don't find something that may give you an answer or change your argument. I'm not Mr. Logic going around implying that I know everything by saying that you should know everything. That's getting to sound like a child arguing.

Let me also remind you that we are arguing from a Christian perspective, quite frankly we don't care about any other religions. So why are you trying to shove them in our face?

[Topher]

Man Homer, that's a LOT of WORK! Work that I don't feel like doing at the moment : P. Maybe when I'm at school I'll take the time and do it, seeing as I'm stuck there with nothing to do most of the time anyways. But, if you would like, write down all of your questions and arguments on a piece of paper that you've stated, then go through Aik's, Jon's and my own replies to stuff and you just may find an answer to your questions, or something that will trigger you to ask a different question or even change your argument. You've gotten to the point where you are just yelling about how smart you are, how dumb we are, and how nobody has answered your questions.

Ok my questions… again. No needs to long answers, just get to the point really. :)

Someone posted Pascal’s Wager, which states it safer to believe in God as you will never ‘loose’ I said that surely a worthy God would judge you on your character and life etc, not what you believed in, so in my personal view it would makes more sense to live a good life and hope for the best. I say this is the better option (from my personal view) as Pascal’s Wager brings numerous issues:

1. How do you know which God to believe in? There are many. And if the others are wrong, why?
2. It makes the assumption that we know for certain the criteria of Gods judgement and how to live our life in order to meet that judgement.
3. How do you know what God wants you to believe and how to believe it?
4. How do you know God doesn’t just judges us on simply being good people and not on what we believe? How do you know he doesn’t like blind faith? Surely it isn’t good to believe in God just because it’s the alleged “safe bet.” To believe in him out of fear is surely worse than not believing him in at all.


God is all loving and forgiving, right?

5. Therefore would he forgive people who sinned/committed crimes etc? (As Jesus has taken the blame for all sins.)
6. So what is sin and the ten commandments for?
7. Is there any case there he wouldn’t forgive someone?
8. Is God’s forgiveness unconditional or conditioned? If so what are the conditions?
9. Why would an all loving, forgiving God sent someone hell. Surely that’s not in his nature.
10. If God is forgiving, what is hell for, because anyone in a position to be sent to hell would surely have been forgiven by God (via Jesus’ death), given that he is forgiving? (aikiMac’s answer to this was that hell is for people who refuse to believe they did wrong etc, but for God not to forgive them anyway seems to contradict him being all loving/forgiving. When I said this aiki simply ignored it)

11. The main principle for God’s judgement is to accept Jesus as your saviour, right?
12. Once you do that, doesn’t it matter what else you believe in and/or do? Sex before marriage/use contraception? Abortion? Interpreted the bible literally or not? Believe in evolution over creations? Etc etc.

All genuine questions which I’m interesting in the answers of. Whether I agree and/or still have questions with the answers or not shouldn’t affect you giving an answer.

Now aiki, don’t start talking about me being “a know it all” or that I’m “trying to tell Christians what Christianity is all about” because I’m clearly not. I’m simply logically connecting the dots from the information I have. If I’m wrong, answer the points stating why I’m wrong. Leave the ad hominem’s and straw men outside.

[BendzR]

Very good post Homer.

Lets see how acurately I can answer these within a Christian mind-frame. I cannot answer any of these with an open-minded 'undefined view of God' mind-frame. Simply because I think they are impossible to answer. Which is why I am agnostic.

Ok my questions… again. No needs to long answers, just get to the point really. :)

Someone posted Pascal’s Wager, which states it safer to believe in God as you will never ‘loose’ I said that surely a worthy God would judge you on your character and life etc, not what you believed in, so in my personal view it would makes more sense to live a good life and hope for the best. I say this is the better option (from my personal view) as Pascal’s Wager brings numerous issues:

1. How do you know which God to believe in? There are many. And if the others are wrong, why?

If you already believe that God X is correct, then there is no need to prove that God Y is not correct. There is no need for more questions if you are certain in what you believe regarding 'which God'

2. It makes the assumption that we know for certain the criteria of Gods judgement and how to live our life in order to meet that judgement.

The Bible tells you everything you need to know. Which raises the next question of how do we know the Bible is true. Apparently there is evidence for that. I am still to see it, but yeah.

3. How do you know what God wants you to believe and how to believe it?

Same answer as before really. Sin is basically something that God does not want. So anything that is the opposite of sin - as the Bible lists sins - is what God wants. Such as believing in him. So why do what God wants ? That is your purpose in life. Serving God.

4. How do you know God doesn’t just judges us on simply being good people and not on what we believe? How do you know he doesn’t like blind faith? Surely it isn’t good to believe in God just because it’s the alleged “safe bet.” To believe in him out of fear is surely worse than not believing him in at all. God is all loving and forgiving, right?

First part of your question is pretty easy. The Bible says that God judges everyone - when judgement happens - and that no one has any hope of getting into heaven on his own. We are all screwed. We have a thing called natural sin, which we cannot avoid, which is our disconnection from God. So even if God forgives (which he supposedly does) all our sins, he cannot fix the disconnection with God - natural sin - and thus we are still screwed. This is where Jesus comes in. He fixes that disconnection with God as he is the link - the messiah. Then you can be forgiven completely - if you chose to be. That does not mean that because Jesus fixed the disconnection to God, that you get into Heaven automatically. You still need to ask for Gods forgiveness, which he will provide. If you ask for his forgiveness and accept Jesus - and his crucifiction - you have all bases covered. And you will party in eternity.

The second part of your question is a whopper. It is the main problem with Christianity for me. It is the reason I quit. It is the reason I am now agnostic. As a Christian I would not have been able to answer it. I still cannot grasp how something which is motivated by "not going to hell" - which is fear - should be the encouragement we get from God. I believe that it cannot be in the nature of God to force people to choose him by giving them a fear-based motivation. It just does not work. If I put a Gun to some girls head, and told her she would die if she does not love me, which then results in her acting as if she does love me, would not be love. It would be evil of me to do that, and is about as opposite to loving as possible.

So as a Christian I would have left this Question blank, or given you some response that didn't really answer the question.

5. Therefore would he forgive people who sinned/committed crimes etc? (As Jesus has taken the blame for all sins.)

See previous question. Unless you both accept Jesus and get Gods forgiveness you are screwed.

6. So what is sin and the ten commandments for?

It is a list of things God desires you to do/not do do. It does not really matter how much of it you get right, or how much you get wrong, because you can still get into heaven with any sin over your head if your bases are covered.

They were more relevant in the old testament times, and were written to guide people in those days. A lot of Sins/Rules (not just the 10C's) of the old testament we now know were written for a reason. To protect the people of the time. They might seem silly today, but if God says "do not eat milk while eating red meat" it was probably a way of God - or whoever wrote it - to tell people not to do something which would probably have resulted in sickness back then. It does not apply as much today however.

The commandments do not really serve such a big purpose today, as compared back then. Christians do feel the need to worship and please their God. Getting into heaven and being saved is one thing. But it results in a sense of happiness that requires you to express it. Knowing a simply guideline of what God desires gives a Christian purpose towards God, it gives him a goal - to be as good as possible, thus pleasing his friend God - after the process of being born again (having all bases covered).

7. Is there any case there he wouldn’t forgive someone?

According to the Bible, there is only one Sin which would result in never being able to fix it. The "unforgivable sin" is to deny the holy spirit. Ironically out of the trinity, the HS is probably the easiest to deny as it plays a less significant part in the Christianity story.

This unforgivable sin has been the topic of many debates. As a Christian I believed that it is not in Gods nature to not forgive. The best way I could interpretate this sin, was that it is basically saying "To not believe in the reality of God and his interaction with us, would result in not being forgiven."

In otherwords, believing in a deist view of God is not good enough. If you do, and ask God for forgiveness, your prayers will go unheard.

I still believed that the unforgivable sin was not an action (like stealing) but a state of mind (like believing red is prettier than blue) and thus it could be undone. Meaning that if you changed your view on the trinity/HS, you could once again become forgivable.

This was just my personal view on it. Someone might disagree with me. Feel free to do so whoever disagrees.

8. Is God’s forgiveness unconditional or conditioned? If so what are the conditions?

See Q2, Q3, Q5 Answers

9. Why would an all loving, forgiving God sent someone hell. Surely that’s not in his nature.

As a Christian I would have agreed. Which resulted in me, redefining my definition of hell. I believed all the "torture and flames" was just symbolical for how we would perceive hell. It was one place you really did not want to be. Heaven - in my definition - was not the way you see it in cartoons either. Heaven to me was simply "eternity in the presence of God" and hell "eternity without the presence of God". I looked at life on earth as "limited time in some (but not all) of Gods presence".

My faith was that we are all designed by God. And we all share a deep longing to be in Gods presence. Nothing can make you happy until you are in total presence of God. It would result in an eternal state of enlightenment.

That is why Heaven would be so good. We would be in that Nirvana state. For ever.

Hell however, is not a place where God has just thrown all the kids he didn't like. Going to hell is a result of your own actions. God never throws anyone into hell. It is simply a state that your soul goes into, when you are neglected to enter Heaven after death. After death one would know for certain fact that God is real. You would experience it in Judgement. We would know that our only purpose in existance is to be in Gods' presence, after having a taste of it during Judgement. We would know that we are stuck eternally in the state of "without God" and there is nothing you can do to change that. That hopelessness would be about as bad as any illustration of fire and torture.

To me, that view was more consistant with the nature of God.

10. If God is forgiving, what is hell for, because anyone in a position to be sent to hell would surely have been forgiven by God (via Jesus’ death), given that he is forgiving? (aikiMac’s answer to this was that hell is for people who refuse to believe they did wrong etc, but for God not to forgive them anyway seems to contradict him being all loving/forgiving. When I said this aiki simply ignored it)

See Q9

11. The main principle for God’s judgement is to accept Jesus as your saviour, right?

I would have covered this in previous Q's I think

12. Once you do that, doesn’t it matter what else you believe in and/or do? Sex before marriage/use contraception? Abortion? Interpreted the bible literally or not? Believe in evolution over creations? Etc etc.

Technically it wouldn't matter. But someone who really accepts Jesus and God would also naturally have the desire to please God, by doing what he desires. If you continue to sin after accepting Jesus, it will result in you feeling guilty and miserable. If you truely accept Jesus and God you will find that you cannot help yourself, and you will find you constantly feel the need to do the right thing.

Imagine you landed a job where your boss pays you heaps, even if you do not work very hard. He treats you like a son, even though you do not really deserve it. Would you - even if you could - just slack off and get payed heaps ? Some people probably would. I personally could not do that. If someone looked after me, I would not be able to help myself. I would work very hard and try and return the favour. It's just in my nature. If someone looks after me, I will do anything I can to look after them.

If I know someone saves my soul, I would do whatever I can - even if its not overly important in comparison to the bigger picture - to bring them pleasure by doing that which they desire.

All genuine questions which I’m interesting in the answers of. Whether I agree and/or still have questions with the answers or not shouldn’t affect you giving an answer.

Now aiki, don’t start talking about me being “a know it all” or that I’m “trying to tell Christians what Christianity is all about” because I’m clearly not. I’m simply logically connecting the dots from the information I have. If I’m wrong, answer the points stating why I’m wrong. Leave the ad hominem’s and straw men outside.

The problem, is that you are asking questions targetting an open-minded viewframe of God. 99% of Christians do not fall in this catagory. Not because they are stupid or closed-minded. But they simply already have a definition of who they think God is. Which will probably result in answers as I have written above. Which just lead to more questions.

Hope that helps.

[aikiMac]

And btw, aikiMac is requesting I accept his claims, despite the lack of evidence supporting them, just so he can move onto the next stage of his argument.
I don't understand why you don't get it.

You ask a question about what Christians believe about God, but you won't allow God to be in the answer. Huh?

You ask why Christians believe the Bible is divine in origin, but you won't let God be part of the answer. Huh?

You ask why Christians believe in a thing called "sin," but you won't allow God or the Bible in the answer. Huh?

You ask why Christians believe such-and-such about Jesus, but you won't allow God or the Bible in the answer. Huh?

You ask why Christians believe 10 commandments were written on stone, but you won't allow Deuteronomy chapter 5 in the answer. Huh?

You ask about God's character, but you won't accept the list of characteristics given in the Bible. Huh?

You ask about God's judgment, but you won't allow God or the Bible or God's characteristics in the answer. Huh?

And on and on. You ask questions about Christian beliefs, but you won't allow the answers to reference God, Jesus, or the Bible.

That makes no sense. If I were to ask about Moslem doctrine, I would allow Allah and the Koran and Mohammed to be in the answer. I would never ask a question about Moslem doctrine and then object when Allah is in the answer, or the Koran in the answer, or Mohammed is in the answer. Never. Such an objection is absurd! Ditto for every other religion.

That's the difference between you and me, Homer.

Come back when you're ready to hear an answer.

[BendzR]

The difference between you and Homer is that you expect him to see things through your eyes - which is fair enough - but you do not return the favour.

He does not believe in God. His reasoning denies him to believe in some things you believe in. That is why he puts up premises that seem absurd to you. But you don't see that. You just attack him by saying hes being obnoxious ?

You could explain how setting some premises neglects the purpose of asking some questions. And then explain why you believe the opposite of these premises are true. Once they are out of the way, the answer to his question can be provided.

If you do not know how to explain these things to him through his own eyes, then don't result in calling him obnoxious, because he is far from it.

[Aegis]

Homer man, it's not working. Not only has Aikimak giving you answers to your questions ( which I might add weren't the simple yes and no you were looking for ), other people have as well. Why don't you adress those instead of going on your rant of absolutely nothing?

You know, I went to a Gamers Assylum place; it's a place where a bunch of geeks get together and play on the computers there, all connected. Well, one prissy little know it all guy who had to be at least 20 something came in and started talking and talking and talking. He sounded like a little kid, acted like a little kid, and thought he knew EVERYTHING about gaming. Not only did he suck at the game he was playing, but he threw a little fit everytime things didn't go his way. It was quite ridiculous, and that Homer, is what you are reminding me of.
It's odd really, because that sounds a lot like how I view many people who come along spouting bad science to try to back up their religious stance without actually knowing some of the fundamentals of the scientific method.

Anyway, that was something of an aside.

[Capt Ann]

Ok my questions… again. No needs to long answers, just get to the point really. :)I've been off these threads for a while, so forgive me if I've missed a bunch of the conversation in between. Homer, I appreciate that you took the time to boil your questions down to a short 'explain-THIS' list. You definitely don't settle for easy questions, I'll give you that!! I'll take a stab at some of them. But please remember, there will always be some difference between "Ann thinks this" and "God says this". Ideally, I want those two cases to be as close as possible, but as long as I'm still human, there will be places where my answers are incomplete, unsatisfactory, or just plain wrong. If you're willing to put up with that, I'll have a go at your list.

Someone posted Pascal’s Wager....I agree that Pascal's wager is probably one of the weakest, poorest arguments for belief in God.

....surely a worthy God would judge you on your character and life etc, not what you believed inI think this shows we have a disconnect on what 'belief' means. Reading through these threads, I sometimes get the idea that people view 'faith' or 'belief in God' as some kind of test: fill in the bubbles with a number-two pencil on a test about a whole list of doctrinal issues, and if you get an 85% or higher, you get 'in'. This is not at all Biblical 'belief', and nothing like what I mean when I use the word, or talk about believing in God. I see 'belief' as an all-consuming, guiding principle that affects every aspect of your life. For instance, do you believe it's wrong to cheat on your wife? Can you see that your actions will be radically different, depending on whether you see cheating on your wife as something that's "probably not good", vs seeing it as something that should never even be considered?

The way I understand (and use) the word 'belief', it is synonymous with character. Here's an example: Person 'A' was always a habitual liar. His parents taught him to lie by example. He learned to lie to survive in school. He lies to his friends, he lies to his family, and he lies on his job. For some reason, he has a deep change of heart and belief. (Maybe he puts His trust in Jesus Christ and gets 'saved'). Now, he genuinely believes that lying is wrong. He still does it - old habits are hard to break. But he tries. He works on it. He practices telling the truth. He goes back and tries to correct the past lies that he has told. He values truth, and he is grieved every time he slips and tells even the smallest lie. Gradually, he sees improvement in this area, but he still sometimes lies. Compare him to Person 'B', who tells the truth most of the time. He always has. He never really had much reason to lie. Sometimes, though, he'll lie just to make himself feel better, or look better, or because it's convenient. He really doesn't give it much thought, and doesn't really see anything wrong with it. In this example, both people may have the same actions (in fact, Person B might sometimes act better than Person A). But their different beliefs about lying have resulted in different character. As times goes by, both of their actions will change, to become more and more in conformity with their character, which has already changed to be in conformity with their beliefs. You see, Person 'A' is now basically honest (he acknowledges that truth is right, lying is wrong, and he wants to tell the truth), while Person 'B' is not (he sees no big deal about dishonesty).

You can apply the above to any character trait. Your beliefs (the real ones, not just some skin-deep superficial thoughts) will define your character, which will eventually work out into your actions. In Catholic theology, Jesus Christ saves people through this change in their beliefs, which changes their character, and then their actions, so they become objectively pleasing to God. In Protestant theology, Jesus Christ saves people when they trust in Him, so that their beliefs are different, making them pleasing to God; then their character and actions change. It really doesn't matter which is true, because the end result is that a real change in beliefs makes a real change in character, which will inevitably, eventually result in a real change in actions.

For instance, maybe you've never killed anyone, but if you are a prejudiced, hate-filled person, it might only be a matter of opportunity and time.......and we're talking about God and eternity here, so we have lots of time for these beliefs and character traits to work themselves out.

Now, please re-consider your list of questions in light of the above. I think some of the pieces will fit a little better.

Pascal’s Wager brings numerous issues:As I said, Pascal's Wager is an interesting discussion, but a lousy argument for belief in God. I actually think he meant it as an argument for why living as if God existed is a good idea, and not an argument for God's existence, or belief in God.

1. How do you know which God to believe in? Any God deserving of worship would certainly be capable of making Himself known, if He wants you to know Him. If He doesn't care about you, then there's nothing you can do anyway. There is a very interesting story about a monument to an 'unknown God' in ancient Athens, in a book called “Eternity in Their Hearts”, by Don Richardson (well worth finding in a local library). Are you willing to admit you don’t know, and are you willing to look and live with the consequences, if you find that he is real?

And if the others are wrong, why?Start with the obvious: The beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism/Christianity, Islam, and Zorastrianism are all contradictory to each other. Therefore, at most ONE can be correct. That means that, as I’m looking into religion, I should expect that either NONE are correct, or ONLY ONE is correct. It is exclusive by nature, so I can’t let that deter me from looking.

2. It makes the assumption that we know for certain the criteria of Gods judgement and how to live our life in order to meet that judgement. Do you know every paragraph of every statute in the tax law of your country? Probably not. But if you fail to pay any taxes at all every year and you lie on the forms, you probably know with great certainty that you are violating the law. Your sense of guilt is based on those laws that you know you are violating, not all those ones you don’t know about. You don’t need to know every one of God’s requirements. But I’m sure that there are some things that you believe are ‘wrong’, that you have done anyway. Pascal’s Wager actually doesn’t assume you know all of God’s requirements. It assumes that you know what you believe is wrong, and you know that you are guilty at some points of violating your own standard.

3. How do you know what God wants you to believe and how to believe it?I think we can make some reasonable assumptions here. Start with the obvious. Certainly, believing that God exists is probably on the list. Just given that one belief, we can extrapolate a lot: God exists. I’m not God. Wherever we disagree, He’s the one who’s right.

4. How do you know God doesn’t just judges us on simply being good people and not on what we believe?From the discussion above, they are really the same thing.

How do you know he doesn’t like blind faith?OK, I don’t know He doesn’t like blind faith. I assume He doesn’t like blind faith because I don’t like blind faith, and I’m created in his image.

Surely it isn’t good to believe in God just because it’s the alleged “safe bet.” No argument here at all.

To believe in him out of fear is surely worse than not believing him in at all.Maybe not worse, but probably nearly as bad.


God is all loving and forgiving, right?Wrong. Get this one out of your head. All your questions past this point are based on this assumption. If this assumption is wrong, of course you won’t be able to make sense of the questions that follow.

God is NOT all loving and all forgiving. God is perfectly loving and perfectly forgiving. There’s a big difference. I won’t go into it here. It’s been discussed some on other threads. Plus, I trust you – please think about how they differ, and when you get a chance, post what you come up with. I think it will greatly affect your understanding of the remaining questions.

5. Therefore would he forgive people who sinned/committed crimes etc? (As Jesus has taken the blame for all sins.)He would provide for forgiveness, and offer forgiveness. Please think back to that example about how belief --> character --> action. Should there be no sanctions for a murderer who killed someone, doesn’t think killing is wrong, and would gladly kill again? Even if you ‘forgave’ him of that specific incident of killing, isn’t he still a murderer, by his character and belief? Should that person be treated the same as the person who killed, recognizes that murder is morally repugnant, and would never want to kill anyone again? Is that second person still a murderer, by his character and belief?

6. So what is sin and the ten commandments for? God’s not the One who sins: we are. I guess you have to ask each of us why we sin, since it’s our choice. Sin is non-conformity to God’s will. Each of us, at some point, has chosen to rebel against God’s will. Just think about that thing that you feel the most guilt in your life about. That. We chose to walk some other way than God’s. We drifted farther and farther away from His way of doing things and His way of thinking. The commandments (over 500 in the Bible, not just 10) give the knowledge of sin. They point out in writing that we have fallen far short from God’s way of doing things and God’s way of thinking and God’s view of what is/isn’t important. They remind us, every time we look at them, that we have failed.

7. Is there any case there he wouldn’t forgive someone?Yes.
8. Is God’s forgiveness unconditional or conditioned? If so what are the conditions?Semantics. I believe it’s offered unconditionally, meaning every human being is offered forgiveness, regardless of what they have/haven’t done. Receiving the benefits of forgiveness is conditioned on accepting it by faith, on God’s terms.
9. Why would an all loving, forgiving God sent someone hell. Surely that’s not in his nature.A). Please re-evaluate, keeping in mind the difference between infinite forgiveness, and perfect forgiveness. B). God is perfectly loving and perfectly forgiving, yes. But He is also perfectly just, and perfectly righteous. Can anyone be perfectly just if he never had any punishments or sanctions or consequences for wrong-doing? Would any human judge be “just” if every criminal found guilty in his court were let go with no sentence at all? Would any judge like that promote justice in his realm? C). (Warning: one of those “Ann says that..” statements coming up – others might disagree on whether or not this is what God would say). Does God ‘send’ people to hell, or does he just judge their sin, then some people hold onto that sin so tightly that it drags them with it when that sin is cast into hell? Imagine, for instance, that you are out in the middle of the ocean, and the only land within swimming distance is two miles away - straight down. As your lifeboat capsizes, you grab onto something and hold onto it with everything you have – but it just so happens that the item you grab onto and hold so tightly is the lifeboat’s anchor. A passing ship sees you and throws you a life preserver. It can keep you afloat so you can be hauled to safety, but you have to let go of that anchor you’re holding, in order to grab it with both hands. Some people go to hell because they would rather hold an anchor than accept a life preserver.
10. If God is forgiving, what is hell for, because anyone in a position to be sent to hell would surely have been forgiven by God (via Jesus’ death), given that he is forgiving? (aikiMac’s answer to this was that hell is for people who refuse to believe they did wrong etc, but for God not to forgive them anyway seems to contradict him being all loving/forgiving. When I said this aiki simply ignored it)I don’t think Aiki ignored you. I think he felt he had already addressed it. I have seen AikiMac post numerous times about God being perfectly loving and perfectly forgiving and also perfectly just and perfectly righteous. In fact, there’s a whole thread dedicated to this issue, about judgment. Maybe all of us are assuming a little too much about what the others know/understand/remember. Anyway, in this case, please don’t write him off as having ignored you – I don’t think he did.

But as far as your question, the Bible says that hell was created for the devil and his angels. Just taking that at face value for now, that is consistent with what you have posted and with the Bible, since nowhere can I see where God promises salvation to the devil, or where Jesus died to save any angels. He died to save sinners. (Aside: That was actually one of the big problems the Pharisees had – they wouldn’t admit that they were sinners, just like everyone else, so they couldn’t admit they needed a savior.) Jesus’ death and resurrection made forgiveness available. Anyone who is facing hell has forgiveness available. Many will choose not to receive it.

11. The main principle for God’s judgement is to accept Jesus as your saviour, right?Right. (Or in the USA, you can accept Him as your savior. :D )

12. Once you do that, doesn’t it matter what else you believe in and/or do? Sex before marriage/use contraception? Abortion? Interpreted the bible literally or not? Believe in evolution over creations? Etc etc.Depends on what you mean when you say ‘it matters’. Truth is always important. It’s always better to be ‘right’ about facts, beliefs, opinions, etc. There are consequences for being ‘wrong’ about some of these issues – like ending up with a child out of wedlock, or the parents separated, or having to drop out of school to take care of a family, or venereal disease, etc, as possible consequences of sex outside marriage. But yes, you can be a Christian and get to heaven all the while you believe in evolution, use condoms, chew tobacco, and vote for Hillary Clinton. For that matter, you can even get to heaven if you shoot up drugs, beat your kids, and kick your dog. But keep in mind that loooong paragraph I wrote at the very beginning – ‘accepting Christ’ isn’t some passive, ‘yeah, I guess that’s OK’ thing. Real belief will change your character, which will eventually change your actions. The Jesus Who saves is also the Jesus Who is Lord. That’s another one to think about for a while.

Whether I agree and/or still have questions with the answers or not shouldn’t affect you giving an answer. Hey, I’m human. At some points, I get tired. At other points, I just don’t have an answer. If you’re willing to accept my limitations, I’m willing to accept yours.

Sorry for such a long post. Brevity was never one of my gifts.

[Capt Ann]

Oh, I found an ancient forum post (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=123322&postcount=431) where I mentioned that story about the "unknown god". Interesting, it was in a thread discussing Blaise Pascal and his famous wager .

[Strafio]

The difference between you and Homer is that you expect him to see things through your eyes - which is fair enough - but you do not return the favour.
I think that the reason for this is because the topic in question is Aikimac's faith, so naturally we've got to look through Aikimac's eyes while questioning it. If we were talking about Homer's faith/beliefs then I guess that would be a different matter.

[BendzR]

Good point Strafio. But if I was to explain Physics or Algebra to someone, so that they could understand it (after they question it), I would have to first look at how they see it, before I can clear things up for them.

[Moony]

Homer man, it's not working. Not only has Aikimak giving you answers to your questions ( which I might add weren't the simple yes and no you were looking for ), other people have as well. Why don't you adress those instead of going on your rant of absolutely nothing?

You know, I went to a Gamers Assylum place; it's a place where a bunch of geeks get together and play on the computers there, all connected. Well, one prissy little know it all guy who had to be at least 20 something came in and started talking and talking and talking. He sounded like a little kid, acted like a little kid, and thought he knew EVERYTHING about gaming. Not only did he suck at the game he was playing, but he threw a little fit everytime things didn't go his way. It was quite ridiculous, and that Homer, is what you are reminding me of.

Ahhhh........

So one chance encounter with a muppet of the gaming world and all gamers are like that? You are quite far from the truth there sparks. Now go back to your happy clappy bible meeting.....cos you see those cart blanch statements work both ways.

Moony

[Sparkle]

Wow . . . this thread has developed a lot whilst I slept! :woo:

To Aegis, yeah, ha ha real funny but we all know what your little aside was directed at. Are you guys ever going to get over it, I learned. ( If it wasn't dirrected at me, then I can still understand . . . I've read some of the posts. )

To Moony, no not all gamers are like that! My two friends and the little dude way at the other end of the table who we were playing Counter Strike were pretty cool, although they kept killing me a lot. I'll errr . . . go back to my Bible study then :confused: you can ummm go back and dig a hole and look at all the pretty rocks, that's what you're into isn't it? Then we'll both be happy. :cool:

I don't have anything left to say, it seems it has all been said and probably better said then I could have ever put it. Peace and God bless everyone.

[Strafio]

Good point Strafio. But if I was to explain Physics or Algebra to someone, so that they could understand it (after they question it), I would have to first look at how they see it, before I can clear things up for them.
Ah! Understood. :)

[Moony]

To Moony, no not all gamers are like that! My two friends and the little dude way at the other end of the table who we were playing Counter Strike were pretty cool, although they kept killing me a lot. I'll errr . . . go back to my Bible study then :confused: you can ummm go back and dig a hole and look at all the pretty rocks, that's what you're into isn't it? Then we'll both be happy. :cool:

You just came over as a little judgemental and i know a fair few people that are gamers and they are as far as you can get fom that kids type of attitude.

Now about these rocks you mentioned........;)

Moony

[Sparkle]

You just came over as a little judgemental and i know a fair few people that are gamers and they are as far as you can get fom that kids type of attitude.

Now about these rocks you mentioned........;)

Moony

:D I didn't know we were really talking about gamers. Gamers are awesome Moony. I sat down in class the other day and talked all class about old school to new school games. A lot of them are really cool people . . . . that one guy though :woo: :p . Sorry if I was coming across to be that judgemental, didn't mean to and I'm sorry for that.

[Topher]

BendzR, Ann, thank for answering the question. Good opinions, I appreciate them both.

Lets see how acurately I can answer these within a Christian mind-frame. I cannot answer any of these with an open-minded 'undefined view of God' mind-frame. Simply because I think they are impossible to answer. Which is why I am agnostic.
I obviously expect a Christian view on these questions, but I was taking the view of someone who was thinking or decide to believe in God, but who didn’t have a connection with a specific religion/God. So the first questions they will ask is which one? Which path to take? In my view – which ever one suites them best. But it doesn’t help when some people claim their version is true - without reason or evidence why - and that others a wrong. It only confuses matters.

First part of your question is pretty easy. The Bible says that God judges everyone - when judgement happens - and that no one has any hope of getting into heaven on his own. We are all screwed. We have a thing called natural sin, which we cannot avoid, which is our disconnection from God. So even if God forgives (which he supposedly does) all our sins, he cannot fix the disconnection with God - natural sin - and thus we are still screwed. This is where Jesus comes in. He fixes that disconnection with God as he is the link - the messiah. Then you can be forgiven completely - if you chose to be. That does not mean that because Jesus fixed the disconnection to God, that you get into Heaven automatically. You still need to ask for Gods forgiveness, which he will provide. If you ask for his forgiveness and accept Jesus - and his crucifiction - you have all bases covered. And you will party in eternity.
Very good answer, and it makes a lot of sense, assuming you believe all the assumptions ;)

The second part of your question is a whopper. It is the main problem with Christianity for me. It is the reason I quit. It is the reason I am now agnostic. As a Christian I would not have been able to answer it. I still cannot grasp how something which is motivated by "not going to hell" - which is fear - should be the encouragement we get from God. I believe that it cannot be in the nature of God to force people to choose him by giving them a fear-based motivation. It just does not work. If I put a Gun to some girls head, and told her she would die if she does not love me, which then results in her acting as if she does love me, would not be love. It would be evil of me to do that, and is about as opposite to loving as possible.

So as a Christian I would have left this Question blank, or given you some response that didn't really answer the question.
My point entirely :)

See previous question. Unless you both accept Jesus and get Gods forgiveness you are screwed.

It is a list of things God desires you to do/not do do. It does not really matter how much of it you get right, or how much you get wrong, because you can still get into heaven with any sin over your head if your bases are covered.
This is what I suspected, that accepting Jesus and God is really the key. What I don’t understand is that if a murder decides to accept Jesus and God (the basis) he can be forgiven (providing he want's to be) and get into heaven, despite his horrible crime. Yet someone who spends their life being good and moral, but isn’t religious and therefore doesn’t accept Jesus/God (the basis) won’t. That is not a loving, forgiving God in my view.

Based on Ann's reply, i see why a once evil person might be allowed into heaven, but it dosn't explain why someone unreligious, who has been a moral/good person their entire life, not being allowed just because they didn't have faith.

Technically it wouldn't matter. But someone who really accepts Jesus and God would also naturally have the desire to please God, by doing what he desires. If you continue to sin after accepting Jesus, it will result in you feeling guilty and miserable. If you truely accept Jesus and God you will find that you cannot help yourself, and you will find you constantly feel the need to do the right thing.
I see the point, but surely the Catholic Church who believe in evolution want to please God, and churches who believe in creationism also want to believe in him, yet they have conflicting doctrine.

Even though all branches of Christianity share the foundation beliefs and principles, holding other contradicting points will, although not contradict the core principles, conflict with pleasing God, unless of course he likes all stances.

[aikiMac]

I think that the reason for this is because the topic in question is Aikimac's faith, so naturally we've got to look through Aikimac's eyes while questioning it. If we were talking about Homer's faith/beliefs then I guess that would be a different matter.
Exactly. Don't ask a question if you won't let the question be answered.


But if I was to explain Physics or Algebra to someone, so that they could understand it (after they question it), I would have to first look at how they see it, before I can clear things up for them.
Let's go with that. What if the person asking about algebra kept harping on your arithmetic while asking about algebra? Wouldn't that get old real fast? Huh?

See the difference?

Remember this post (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46165&page=1&pp=15)? Questions were answered there, but a few certain somebodies refused to listen. Questions were answered in another thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36168&page=1&pp=15) here. The reliability of the biblical manuscript has been done to death in other threads. Whether any God exists or not has been done to death in other threads. There are threads in the Philosophy forum on whether absolute truth exists. Etc. All the little pieces have been done.

There is a time and place to discuss the rules of arithmetic, but algebra and calculus classes are not that place. The building blocks have already been set by the time you get to algebra and calculus. Questions on religion must follow a similar track.

[Topher]

I've been off these threads for a while, so forgive me if I've missed a bunch of the conversation in between. Homer, I appreciate that you took the time to boil your questions down to a short 'explain-THIS' list. You definitely don't settle for easy questions, I'll give you that!! I'll take a stab at some of them. But please remember, there will always be some difference between "Ann thinks this" and "God says this". Ideally, I want those two cases to be as close as possible, but as long as I'm still human, there will be places where my answers are incomplete, unsatisfactory, or just plain wrong. If you're willing to put up with that, I'll have a go at your list.
One of my fundamental positions is that when there is no definitive answer, everyone will have their personal view of it. Now had you said ‘this is absolutely true!’ or something similar then it would have been round 1 :Angel: :D, but personal opinions I cannot touch. :)

I see 'belief' as an all-consuming, guiding principle that affects every aspect of your life. For instance, do you believe it's wrong to cheat on your wife? Can you see that your actions will be radically different, depending on whether you see cheating on your wife as something that's "probably not good", vs seeing it as something that should never even be considered?
With me before I start using something as the basis on my actions, I would need to make sure it is logically valid/sound and has reason/evidence supporting it. Probably the reason why I’m incompatible with religion because I would never believe something, especially something that could/would affect my world view and actions, simply because someone told me it was true.

You example with lying made sense. Someone who lies but acknowledges it’s bad and tries to stop doing so is ‘better’ than someone who doesn’t lie as much, yet doesn’t see a problem. Although an argument can be made that Person A wasn’t trying hard enough. Perhaps?

As I said, Pascal's Wager is an interesting discussion, but a lousy argument for belief in God. I actually think he meant it as an argument for why living as if God existed is a good idea, and not an argument for God's existence, or belief in God.
That wouldn’t bring the same problems as holding a belief in his existence as such, but if you lived as if God existed you would still need to pick on as they are not all compatible. Then, if there is a God and you lived according to the incorrect God you still in trouble.

Any God deserving of worship would certainly be capable of making Himself known, if He wants you to know Him. If He doesn't care about you, then there's nothing you can do anyway. Are you willing to admit you don’t know, and are you willing to look and live with the consequences, if you find that he is real?
How do you notice him making himself know? I’m sure you would advocate that the Christian God is caring, yet I’ve had no sign.

I don’t subscribe to the Christian, Islamic, Hindu or any existing views of God(s) so obviously I won’t live my life in accordance to any one way as to do so you side with one, which as I stated, I don’t. I just aim to live a good life that’s that. If that’s not good enough (assuming there is a God) then I’m buggered.

Start with the obvious: The beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism/Christianity, Islam, and Zorastrianism are all contradictory to each other. Therefore, at most ONE can be correct. That means that, as I’m looking into religion, I should expect that either NONE are correct, or ONLY ONE is correct. It is exclusive by nature, so I can’t let that deter me from looking.
Good point, which is why I choose to simply see none of them as correct.

Although, saying they are correct i believe is different from living according to some of/their teachings. Most do contain some good teachings/principles, no one can deny that. Saying its correct is different.

Do you know every paragraph of every statute in the tax law of your country? Probably not. But if you fail to pay any taxes at all every year and you lie on the forms, you probably know with great certainty that you are violating the law.
But I know that paying tax is a law to begin with. While I know what God says, whether it is actually a law is another thing.

God is NOT all loving and all forgiving. God is perfectly loving and perfectly forgiving. There’s a big difference. I won’t go into it here. It’s been discussed some on other threads. Plus, I trust you – please think about how they differ, and when you get a chance, post what you come up with. I think it will greatly affect your understanding of the remaining questions.
But it still boils down to the fact that he is forgiving and loving. Although I do understand it better now.

Even if you ‘forgave’ him of that specific incident of killing, isn’t he still a murderer, by his character and belief? Should that person be treated the same as the person who killed, recognizes that murder is morally repugnant, and would never want to kill anyone again? Is that second person still a murderer, by his character and belief?
I would say so in my book. He committed murder, thus he is a murderer. Even if he showed remorse, his past will live with him forever. Nothing he could do would cancel that out

Semantics. I believe it’s offered unconditionally, meaning every human being is offered forgiveness, regardless of what they have/haven’t done. Receiving the benefits of forgiveness is conditioned on accepting it by faith, on God’s terms.
If it is offered unconditionally, but the rewards are based on faith then there is in fact a condition. No?

[Strafio]

My one problem with Christianity it is all about "getting it right". I know that once you "know" the "truth" it's merely about being sorry for the bad you've done and loving the one who created/died for you, but until you've "gotten it right", that's an impossibility. I have to get the right belief, right understanding of the world and find it in this lifetime, or I'm for it - that's my eternal life ruined! :cry:

At the same time, every Christian will say that it requires a leap of faith, which is fair enough as most beliefs do. I've only really learnt Buddhism through "giving it a go" and I started Wing Chun almost purely on the faith of what a friend described to me.

Thing is, this faith can apply equally to all of Christianity's rival beliefs, so if there is one truth that we should all know and have no excuse for not knowing then faith should not be necessary. As it stands, the Buddhist perspective on life, the world and truth makes a lot of sense to me and is all I need to live life right now. The only reason I still have a major interest in Christianity is because I want to get to the bottom of this whole "judgement" myth, show that it's nonsense to be buried, and erm... make sure that it actually is nonsense to be buried, rather than find out the "hard" way at the pearly gates! :o

After I do that Christianity won't really be a major concern of mine. I'll have a passive kind of interest in it as I do with most religions, and maybe a bit more as a lot of friends and relative follow it, but it won't be hugely relevant to my life.

I obviously expect a Christian view on these questions, but I was taking the view of someone who was thinking or decide to believe in God, but who didn’t have a connection with a specific religion/God. So the first questions they will ask is which one? Which path to take? In my view – which ever one suites them best. But it doesn’t help when some people claim their version is true - without reason or evidence why - and that others a wrong. It only confuses matters.
I think your point here is that as Christianity is described as the one truth for everybody that it should be "accessable" (i.e. understandable) to everyone, not just to people who have already chosen to understand already.

It's a fairly important one in my opinion so I highlighted it. :)

Even though all branches of Christianity share the foundation beliefs and principles, holding other contradicting points will, although not contradict the core principles, conflict with pleasing God, unless of course he likes all stances.
None of the churches claim to be perfect, they just try to please God as best as they can. I think that they all agree on the most important bits, the necessary bits, and then disagree on grey areas that they aren't necessarily expected to get right.

[Topher]

Exactly. Don't ask a question if you won't let the question be answered.

You ask a question about what Christians believe about God, but you won't allow God to be in the answer. Huh?

You ask why Christians believe the Bible is divine in origin, but you won't let God be part of the answer. Huh?

You ask why Christians believe in a thing called "sin," but you won't allow God or the Bible in the answer. Huh?

[QUOTE=aikiMac]You ask why Christians believe such-and-such about Jesus, but you won't allow God or the Bible in the answer. Huh?
I've never stopped you answering anything. But, in a debate expect rebuttals and responses to answers and claim posed. When i post propositions/arguments/statements, i expect someone - if they say its wrong - to tell me why. Otherwise it's an argument from silence. And I don’t expect someone to accept what I say if they don’t agree with it. Rather, I expect them to prove me wrong.

And I never said God can’t be in the answer. Just that the answer should be rational, logical and not contradicting.

You ask why Christians believe 10 commandments were written on stone, but you won't allow Deuteronomy chapter 5 in the answer. Huh?
I ask (via information from an ex Christian. BendzR to be exact) why God gave Moses one set of commandments, then upon returning after breaking the stones, he received a different set of commandments.

You ask about God's character, but you won't accept the list of characteristics given in the Bible. Huh?

You ask about God's judgment, but you won't allow God or the Bible or God's characteristics in the answer. Huh?
It’s not that I don’t recognise what the Bible states; I just would like to validate it before accepting it a truth. Is that not reasonable?

And on and on. You ask questions about Christian beliefs, but you won't allow the answers to reference God, Jesus, or the Bible.
I care about the validity, logicality, rationality, parsimony and evidence of the answer, NOT where the answer comes from.

That makes no sense. If I were to ask about Moslem doctrine, I would allow Allah and the Koran and Mohammed to be in the answer. I would never ask a question about Moslem doctrine and then object when Allah is in the answer, or the Koran in the answer, or Mohammed is in the answer. Never. Such an objection is absurd! Ditto for every other religion.
Funny because neither would I and I have never actually done so. See above answer for what a good answer should consist of.

You’re creating false positions of mine, and then attacking them. Stop making straw men!

[Aegis]

To Aegis, yeah, ha ha real funny but we all know what your little aside was directed at. Are you guys ever going to get over it, I learned. ( If it wasn't dirrected at me, then I can still understand . . . I've read some of the posts. )

It wasn't. Had I intended to direct something your way at that time in the morning, I'd have done it directly. Before about 11am is too early for me to be even remotely subtle!

It was intended at people who either intentionally use bad science or who genuinely can't understand science, but try to use it anyway. In either case it doesn't work, and if anything just serves to undermine their point. A recent case in point was a guy I saw on another forum who was arguing for an intelligent designer because it was so unbelievable that spinning objects (i.e. the earth in this case) generated gravity to keep us down. I kid you not, the guy actually thought that spinning objects generated a force to keep things on the outside, as though we were actually walking on the inside shell of a much faster-moving planet. Terrible science, and yet he thought he knew enough about science and evolution to effectively argue against them.

[Strafio]

Homer, I guess it all depends on what you're questioning here.
So far, your posts are phrased to challenge why Aikimac, or any other Christian, should believe in what they do. I think you agree that Christians have good reason for their faith, otherwise I might convince you otherwise!!! (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=801934&postcount=62) :)

Perhaps if you rephrased the question a little bit:
"What reason do I have to believe?"
From there, the burden of proof would kind of switch.

Aikimac would have to either play by your basic assumptions of life or give you good reason to change them too. At the moment, the fact that you don't understand the Bible works against your argument as you "don't know what you're criticising", or so to speak. If you were to switch, the fact that you don't understand the Bible would be a problem for Aikimac's theory that everyone gets sufficient knowledge to accept or reject it's message (Am I right on this theory Aikimac? Let me know if I'm beating a strawman here! :)) and he'd either have to show that you'd made an obvious mistake that was easy to fix, that you did understand and was just trolling or that you didn't yet understand and that it was still to be revealed to you.

Just an example of how things change if you rephrase your question! ;)

[Topher]

Thing is, this faith can apply equally to all of Christianity's rival beliefs, so if there is one truth that we should all know and have no excuse for not knowing then faith should not be necessary. As it stands, the Buddhist perspective on life, the world and truth makes a lot of sense to me and is all I need to live life right now. The only reason I still have a major interest in Christianity is because I want to get to the bottom of this whole "judgement" myth, show that it's nonsense to be buried, and erm... make sure that it actually is nonsense to be buried, rather than find out the "hard" way at the pearly gates! :o
Buddhism is very interesting. What is most refreshing is that you are expected to test everything out for yourself, even if it means disagree with Buddha. As they say, what do you do if you meet Buddha? ;)

[Topher]

Exactly. Don't ask a question if you won't let the question be answered.

Let's go with that. What if the person asking about algebra kept harping on your arithmetic while asking about algebra? Wouldn't that get old real fast? Huh?

See the difference?

Remember this post (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46165&page=1&pp=15)? Questions were answered there, but a few certain somebodies refused to listen. Questions were answered in another thread (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36168&page=1&pp=15) here. The reliability of the biblical manuscript has been done to death in other threads. Whether any God exists or not has been done to death in other threads. There are threads in the Philosophy forum on whether absolute truth exists. Etc. All the little pieces have been done.

There is a time and place to discuss the rules of arithmetic, but algebra and calculus classes are not that place. The building blocks have already been set by the time you get to algebra and calculus. Questions on religion must follow a similar track.

It wasn't me who even brough it up, i was just responding to someone else.

Your confusing me with not listening, for replying with further questions, something you tend to do in debates. :bang:

So it's not that i'm rejecting your answers, i'm delving into them. I'm spending time focusing on your answer, the complete opposite of ignoring. You don't look at the cover of a book then judge whether it is good now do you. At the very least you read the back and maybe a few pages!

[aikiMac]

Aikimac would have to either play by your basic assumptions of life or give you good reason to change them too. At the moment, the fact that you don't understand the Bible works against your argument as you "don't know what you're criticising", or so to speak. If you were to switch, the fact that you don't understand the Bible would be a problem for Aikimac's theory that everyone gets sufficient knowledge to accept or reject it's message (Am I right on this theory Aikimac? Let me know if I'm beating a strawman here! :)) and he'd either have to show that you'd made an obvious mistake that was easy to fix, that you did understand and was just trolling or that you didn't yet understand and that it was still to be revealed to you.

Just an example of how things change if you rephrase your question! ;)
Agreed. That's what you've done in prior threads, and it worked perfectly fine. That's both the logical and the polite way to go about it. That's how I ask questions about other religions and about everything else. It works.


So it's not that i'm rejecting your answers, i'm delving into them.
Delve into them at the proper time. If you want to know about arithmetic, ask about it in arithmetic class. Do not ask about it in calculus class. It's too late then. If you don't like the answer on arithmetic, fine, but do not ask a question that requires me to use the answer you already rejected. That's rude and illogical, both.

Example: Your objections to the validity of the Bible have already been dealt with. We had that talk. That was "arithemetic" class. That was our "lemma." Class ended and we moved on. Every question from now must allow the Bible to be accurate. If you can't handle that, then don't ask a question that requires me to cite the Bible. Go back to arithemetic class. You don't belong in calculus.

[Topher]

Homer, I guess it all depends on what you're questioning here. So far, your posts are phrased to challenge why Aikimac, or any other Christian, should believe in what they do.I think you agree that Christians have good reason for their faith
I dont think i'm challenging anyone. I'm just posting issues/questions i see and am awaiting to be proven wrong if i am.

Aikimac would have to either play by your basic assumptions of life or give you good reason to change them too. At the moment, the fact that you don't understand the Bible works against your argument as you "don't know what you're criticising", or so to speak. If you were to switch, the fact that you don't understand the Bible would be a problem for Aikimac's theory that everyone gets sufficient knowledge to accept or reject it's message (Am I right on this theory Aikimac? Let me know if I'm beating a strawman here! :))
I understand how the faith thing works, which is my point. My questions/popositions are an attempt to review the arguments and claims made. In order to further my understanding i'm asking a Christian to clarify my issues (which Ann [/Bendzr] did nicely) and not just spouting claims (which is what aiki accused me of via a strawman).

Although i understand their position, naturally not being a person who basis belief on faith, i cannt just accept claims in the manner in which they do.

and he'd either have to show that you'd made an obvious mistake that was easy to fix, that you did understand and was just trolling or that you didn't yet understand and that it was still to be revealed to you.
If i have made mistakes, he is welcome to refute them. Otherwise he shouldn't keeping going on about me not doing this or me doing that. The quickest way to prove me wrong is to do just that.

Contrast with my recent posts with Ann and Bendzr. If what aiki was atruibting to be was true, it would have been apparent in those posts/replies too. Interestingly, it's not.

[Strafio]

I dont think i'm challenging anyone.
Perhaps not intentionally, but that's how I'm kind of reading your posts. It seems that Aikimac and Ckava also are. I know the differences in phrasing the questions are subtle, and the effect is more politeness than changing the questions you're already trying to ask, but it does make all the difference.

I think you still need to make it clearer whether your question is Why should a Christian believe? or Why should I believe? If someone attacks a strawman of your arguments then it's because they've missed your point somewhere down the line. All the more reason to making yourself clearer on what you're trying to say.

I think I understand what you're trying because I think along similar lines myself, but you're not quite making it so clear for the people you're debating with. :)

[Topher]

but do not ask a question that requires me to use the answer you already rejected. That's rude and illogical, both.
Bingo! That is my point!!

How can you base your argument/claim on an illogical and/or fallacious and/or unproven and/or unsupported and/or unparsimonious and/or contradicting previous “answer?” You simply cannot.

That is exactly what I’m getting at this entire time…

If A fails to logically explain B, A must be revised or replaced. A cannot continue to be used as evidence to support further claims.

In other words, if a claim is fallacious it cannot then be used to evidence further claims without the new claim inheriting the fallacy of the evidence use to explain it.

To the point, if the answer to my questions required a previous answer which is fallacious, it’s better to rethink the explanation. In the end it will only strengthen your point.

That said, I’ve not rejected your previous answers, I’ve just questioned their validity. But in the end, it is dishonest to continue to reason with erroneous ‘answers’.

Example: Your objections to the validity of the Bible have already been dealt with. We had that talk. That was "arithemetic" class. That was our "lemma." Class ended and we moved on. Every question from now must allow the Bible to be accurate. If you can't handle that, then don't ask a question that requires me to cite the Bible. Go back to arithemetic class. You don't belong in calculus.
If we’ve haven’t shown the Bible to be logically valid (there are still many issues), then we can’t assume the Bible is accurate. "Arithemetic" class doesn’t end until we have resolved the problems. You don’t run until your able to walk now do you.

[Strafio]

I think that Aikimac's point is that you ask questions who's answers depend on the "lemma", so should perhaps accept those answers hypothetically.
This answer is sound so long as I accept "lemma"... and then go back to arguing against said "lemma" in another topic/question.

[Topher]

I think you still need to make it clearer whether your question is Why should a Christian believe? or Why should I believe? If someone attacks a strawman of your arguments then it's because they've missed your point somewhere down the line. All the more reason to making yourself clearer on what you're trying to say.
My point is not so much why I should believe or a Christian, but more about the evidence/logic/reasoning used in their belief and how they arrive at it. Any belief is fine with a good explination and with evidence. So have they genuinely addressed the claims about something or just ignored/wallpapered over them, or even put it down to the devil??? (It happens!)

I know most of it is based on faith, but if someone shows various fallacies, contradictions, better arguments for something (there everywhere), example: life, then surely it’s better to look into it. That’s not to say that a faith based person can’t do this as the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution because there is so much evidence supporting it. There is no reason why others can follow this line of thinking. You never know, it may even make the their belief and evidence stronger.

I think I understand what you're trying because I think along similar lines myself, but you're not quite making it so clear for the people you're debating with. :)
Given that given me a aiki have different lines of thinking and reasoning it is probably is hard for both of us to properly understand each others point (he said i was doing this and that, which i wasn't. I didn't 'see' he answeres he said he posted etc etc)

Anyway, my previous post explains my entire point.

[Topher]

I think that Aikimac's point is that you ask questions who's answers depend on the "lemma", so should perhaps accept those answers hypothetically.
This answer is sound so long as I accept "lemma"... and then go back to arguing against said "lemma" in another topic/question.
Doing that would bring me to a false conclusion, making the debate a waste of time. I already know the answer when assuming the claim* is correct. I'm actually trying to see how things work when looked at with critical thinking. I'm trying to find an answer to the questions, which is logically sound.

Also, he dosn't need my permission to use the claim to answer the question.

(*lemma= proven proposition)

[aikiMac]

I think that Aikimac's point is that you ask questions who's answers depend on the "lemma", so should perhaps accept those answers hypothetically.
This answer is sound so long as I accept "lemma"... and then go back to arguing against said "lemma" in another topic/question.
^^^ that ^^^

Objections must be raised at the proper time. In law it's called "waiver." If you don't bring it up at the beginning, you don't bring it up. If you ask me a question that you know requires a lemma, then you must let the lemma be used. Simple.

If we're going to talk about God's characteristics, then we're going to cite the Bible. That means that the Bible is taken as true. It also means that God's existence is assumed. If you have a problem with that then don't ask about God's characteristics. Ask about the validity of the Bible instead, or ask about whether or not God exists.

Same with sin -- we're going to cite the Bible, and we're going to assume that God is real. If you have a problem with that then don't ask about sin. Ask about something else.

Same with hell -- we're going to assume sin is real, we're going to assume the Bible is accurate, we're going to assume that God exists, and we're going to assume that God has the characteristcs that the Bible says he has. If you have a problem with any of these then don't ask about hell. Ask a question about your problem area instead.

If you want to know why Christians reject all other religions, then expect citations to the Bible and expect to hear something about Jesus being God. That requires that the Bible is accurate and that Easter really happened. If you have a problem with the accuracy of the Bible or with Easter than don't ask why Christians reject other religions. Ask a question about your problem area instead.

The same courtesy applies across all topics. If you want to know why Allah is superior to Jesus, then expect the existence of Allah to be part of the answer. If you have a problem with that than don't ask why Allah is superior. Ask about the existence of Allah instead.

Etc.

[Capt Ann]

I ask (via information from an ex Christian. BendzR to be exact) why God gave Moses one set of commandments, then upon returning after breaking the stones, he received a different set of commandments.You've referred to this several times. It looks like it's become a rock in your path that you keep tripping over, but it's really pretty simple. The first and second set of stone tablets both contained the exact same ten commandments. The words on the tablets are contained in Deut. 5:6-21, as AikiMac said. Moses recounts the whole story of how he went up on the mountain and God gave the commandments (as listed) and then He wrote them on the two stone tablets (see verse 22). God then told the Hebrews 'Go to your rooms!' (more or less, because He was ticked at them) and told Moses to stay there, so He could give him His commands, decrees, and laws (LOTS of them - see verse 31). This same thing is recorded in greater detail in Exodus 19:16 - 24:3 -ten commandments, then LOTS of laws, commands, statutes, etc., including all those things in BendZr's second list. Now read Exodus 34 - God gives a second set of stone tablets, with the ten commandments on them, and then lists bunches of other laws, statutes, commands. This time it doesn't 'spell out' what those ten commandments are (it already gave them word-for-word, so there's really no point), but it does give greater detail on some of those other statues. I think it's pretty clear that there are 10 commands on two stone tablets, those commands are listed in Deut 5, and then God gave a whole bunch of other laws.

BTW, if you count the 'laws' in Ex. 34, there are like 15 or 20, depending on how you count, so it's clear that either a). Hebrews just can't count, or b). this list in Ex. 34 is NOT the list of ten commandments. I think 'B' makes more sense ;)

[Strafio]

Doing that would bring me to a false conclusion, making the debate a waste of time.
Not really. It provides a framework.
You asked a question and the answer depended on question "p".
So now when you get your answer to "p" it'll answer both questions for you.
Answers to scientific problems are often in this form, depending on hypothesis' still to be confirmed as fact or theories that can still be disproven.

(*lemma= proven proposition)
Only in Mathematics where there's such thing as proof. :)
In normal debating it's a proposition that it generally accepted.
So Aikimac's examples are of Christian lemma's.

So the question is why does Aikimac (and other Christians) believe?
I did this post (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=801934&postcount=62) in the other topic. :)
One of the more popular arguments for the Bible being the word of God is as follows. There has to be a reason why the disciples wrote the Bible.
The most straight-forward one is that the wrote what they saw, truthully and accurately. That's the one that Christians believe.
The other explanations either contradict human nature, contradict history and culture of the time or are so complex and unnatural that occams razor would slice off their scrotum.

It might be that the implication by the Bible being true is even less Parsimonious that these weird "natural" explanations of how it came to be, but if you take the case of the Bible's writing in isolation then the most rational explanation is that the people who wrote it genuinely believed what they saw.

[Capt Ann]

they personally believed was wrong.)

The Christian’s guiding principle is that Jesus Christ is God, therefore He has a right to my allegiance, love, and obedience. I believe that since He is God, His views are more important than mine, and His ways are better than mine. I believe that since He created all the people on this earth in His image and as the objects of His love, that I have a responsibility to love them, too, even sacrificially, the way that Jesus Christ loved me. Therefore, it is my central, core belief that I have a responsibility to love you, care for you, pray for you, and if it came to it, fall on that hand grenade for you, because I know my eternal destiny is secure, and at this point, yours isn’t.

If putting everyone else on earth ahead of yourself isn’t in your core belief system (and without an eternal perspective, why should it be?), then eventually, it will come out in your actions. And we are talking about eternity, here. How can a few years of treating others respectfully make up for choosing an eternity of putting ‘Me First’?

With me before I start using something as the basis on my actions, I would need to make sure it is logically valid/sound and has reason/evidence supporting it. Probably the reason why I’m incompatible with religion because I would never believe something, especially something that could/would affect my world view and actions, simply because someone told me it was true.I like the post Strafio made in the other forum about the Christian world-view being internally consistent and each part supporting other parts, so that it makes a stable whole. I guess my point is that you have a worldview now, and it is affecting all your actions already. You might consider it more carefully, to see if your existing worldview is internally consistent and self-supporting. One of the main reasons I personally cherish Christianity is because I have evaluated many of the competing worldviews out there (including the ones I held before). I found the Christian view to be the most internally consistent and accurate for portraying what I see /experience in the world.

You example with lying made sense. Someone who lies but acknowledges it’s bad and tries to stop doing so is ‘better’ than someone who doesn’t lie as much, yet doesn’t see a problem. Although an argument can be made that Person A wasn’t trying hard enough. Perhaps? That’s one of the benefits of omniscience – God can see into every heart and know what each individual really believes, what his motives are, and whether he’s really ‘trying’. That gives me great comfort, knowing that the Person who knows me best is the Person who loves me most, and is the One who will do all the judging.



I would say so in my book. He committed murder, thus he is a murderer. Even if he showed remorse, his past will live with him forever. Nothing he could do would cancel that outAh, and that is the balance why we need both halves of the Christian message! Anyone who commits murder is a murderer. Ever. Even if he only does it once. Anyone who lies is a liar. Ever. Even if he only does it once. Everyone who cheats is a cheater, everyone who steals is a thief, everyone who fights is a brawler, etc. Everyone who sins is a sinner. Even if it only happened once. We all have been judged: GUILTY! That is why every one of us needs the first half: God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. The ‘wrong’ we have done must be paid for. No amount of being a ‘good, loving, moral’ person can ever make you un-murder, or un-steal, or un-lie, or un-sin. Jesus’ death on the cross paid the penalty that we should have paid. If He died for me, then I consider my old self as having died with Him. That old murderer/liar/thief/cheat/sinner has died.

The second part of the Christian message is that Jesus rose again. If He rose for me, then I consider myself as having risen from the dead with Him. No longer a murderer/liar/thief – that ‘old person is dead, and a brand new person exists now. That ‘new person’ believes in Jesus as a foundational, guiding principle: He is God and I am not. As a result, I no longer have to be a murderer/thief/cheat/etc. The change in my heart has made a change in my character. But even more than that, Jesus Himself has made me something totally new, so I now have different desires and goals - He is the one who has made my heart different.

“You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

If it is offered unconditionally, but the rewards are based on faith then there is in fact a condition. No? No, no contradiction. I have ‘free’ things at my store all the time – all you have to do is come by and pick them up.