The others...

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, interesting. You think that things can come into existence in and of themselves. I.E That the creation can be the creator. This is something I am unable to get my head around.

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

Good point. Human beings are very far from understanding the universe so I can easily see how the universe could have come into being by some natural process that we don't yet understand. On the other hand, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supernatural creator who lives outside our universe but sends his son who is also himself to die for our sins presumably to impress himself and turns water into wine and walks on water but lets innocent children die and actively wants to deny us proof of our existence because he values blind faith over evidence based research, etc etc etc. That's something I can't get my head round

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I'd argue that being a Christian is the way I am also. I disagree with the notion that one is a Christian from birth or that Christianity is hereditory.

I don't get this. How can you disagree that, generally, a person's religion is determined as an accident of where they were geographically born?
You can say it doesn't apply to you, but do you honestly and truly believe that if you were born in India you would still be Christian? I'm sorry, but that's very very unlikely and statistics prove it.

2. Fitting in and the community sense could only be considered a very minor reason, or a secondary reason. It is possible for community sense to be formed in secular communities too, or in other religious communities.

Secular communities? Lack of belief / atheism isn't a religion. That's like calling bald a hair style. I still believe that the environment in which you live, has a strong determining factor in what you believe.

3. Argument ad populum. Proportions do not necessarily mean truth. Truth will be held by a minority. Even the Bible discusses the difference between the narrow gate (Christianity) vs the broad gate (others) and that the truth can only be found by going through the narrow gate and only few will find it.

The only reason I even bother in entering discussions like this is becuase so many people believe. And for me, that was one of the hardest things to accept when moving away from religion 'how can so many people be wrong?'. So I looked for reasons for it and found them. To address your response specifically, that almost looks to me like a typical cult tactic. Make the person feel special and unique.

4. Many things can give people comfort.

It's still why a lot of people want and prefer to believe.

5. I can't either. However unexpected things can happen.

Well, I can. And it's really changed my life for the better since I've accepted it. I live my life to a much fuller degree, knowing that when I'm dead, that's it. I actually wouldn't want to live forever anyway.

6. Christians do get morals from the Bible, and it is considered to be a source of divine wisdom. However, to say that one cannot value certain things and make judgements based on those values is quite wrong. Her statement would have been better in saying, "I don't know how atheists can have coherent moral values without a consistent moral source". I sometimes struggle with that myself

Sure, Christians get morals from the Bible but they pick and choose them. And what do you think enables us to pick and choose them? BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Certain behaviours are built into us through natural selection. It all makes perfect sense, without the need to invoke the Bible. Especially considering some fallible human wrote the Bible stories. If you're going to tell me that it was the word of God passed through them, then please explain how you think that happened and why.

7. This argument does appeal to me slightly, I must admit.

It appeals to everyone on first instinct. We've already been through the Antropic Principle and other explanations so won't go there.

2. As for all of the Bible being historically accurate. There are allegorical texts in the Bible particularly in the books of the prophets. I believe the Bible is subject to literary scrutiny just like any text. To explain the fall of Nebuchadnezzar by which he would be cast out of Babylon for 7 years, Daniel uses parable. Likewise Isaiah and others use parable. It's not as easy as saying is the whole Bible historically accurate, it's as simple as saying that each book has it's purpose. Prophetic books are well, prophesies explained often in allegory. Historical book are books which explain histories. Poetic books such as Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs deal with the human experience.

Seems like you pick and choose.

As for the Resurrection, yes I believe that to be the truth, and I would explain the authenticity of archaeological sites as in the Bible as a different point as I have done in my signature link.

3. Yes, I believe this, you saw that I argued this on the other thread.

The existance if an archaeological site does nothing to show that a supernatural event happened. That's like me making up a story about how a guy jumped off the spire in the city and flew around for a minute, and then saying it's probably true becuase the spire exists.

4. I can't say that I have experienced a miracle, but I have experienced spiritual experiences yes and this is perhaps the main argument for my Christianity. See the link in my signature, point 4 explains this rather well.

Can you give an example please? I certainly don't think you are lying to me, but you should remember that the brain is very powerful. It takes a very critical person to have what seems to be a 'spiritual experience' and acknowledge it was only his mind playing tricks.

As for supernatural vs natural. It's not simply a case that supernatural trumps the natural one. It involves what you can rule out. If you believe the world consists only of natural processes, and natural processes alone, you will never consider the supernatural in any given answer you will provide.

I wouldn't say I ruled out the supernatural, but for every so called 'supernatural event' there is usually a perfectly reasonable natural explanation that can be adopted instead.

Borneo Fnctn

Jakkass wrote: »

Please try to get into the spirit of the thread.

I gave it a good go. I never said the reasons I selected apply to everybody. Some of them apply to some people. Nobody would say they believe because of indoctrination. Obviously. Some people don't have a better reason to believe
though.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

The existance if an archaeological site does nothing to show that a supernatural event happened. That's like me making up a story about how a guy jumped off the spire in the city and flew around for a minute, and then saying it's probably true becuase the spire exists.

You're I think the 8th person to point out exactly that logic to him. The example I used was that the existence of Paris doesn't make The Da Vinci Code real. He doesn't see the logic

philologos

kiffer wrote: »

I think that the idea of a Creator/Prime Mover is nonsensical...
hmmm nonsensical might be a bit strong but let me just say it like this:
As far back as we can figure there is no need to invoke a god...
However if we push back far enough we reach a point beyond which we observe and know nothing...
Must there, at some point, somewhere beyond this limit to our understanding, deep in the mists of time, be a Prime mover?...
An entity, event or agent which itself needs no instigation...
To this you may attribute characteristics, features and motives.
I do not.
I would say that I am ignostic with regards to a deistic prime mover.
I'm willing to say "I don't know", but I acknowledge that this is not as spiritually satisfying as believing in a person who's intellect must be so absolutely alien to our own yet also is capable of similar emotional states as we are... Love, Anger, that finds certain actions to which it may have no analogue abominable, that cares whether or not we believe in it MORE than it cares about our actual actions...

Fair enough. I would hold the view of necessary and contingent beings advocated by philosophers such as Avicenna and Aquinas. If someone retorts with the infinite regress I would advise them to look at the brilliant work of Sadowsky showing how this simply couldn't be the case and that a necessary being is indeed necessary for contingent beings to come into existence. If we were speaking entirely about contingent beings (beings that are said to either exist or not exist) then I would totally understand your objection, as it makes little sense that something that could exist or not exist could also create everything else if I am to go along the lines of the cosmological argument.

This is the only link I could find to the Sadowsky article or elements of it:
http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskyendlessregress.htm

If you take a quick google there are other philosophers who agree with his position, and there are others who disagree. So take a read of both.

As for a personal God. I don't think

kiffer wrote: »

Interesting... So do you feel killing is morally wrong independent of Gods will? Intrinsically and in of itself, wrong? Are there actual moral absolutes or just those set by God' Will?
What does made in God's image mean to you? Spiritual image? metal image? physical image?

I like Thomas Aquinas believe that all morals come from God. I.E They are things that if you were being observed from above, that you would find appropriate to do.

You seem to think that Christians don't believe that those who have never heard faith are not capable of being moral.

Romans 2:14-16 wrote:

When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

As for what I believe about being created in God's image, I believe it to mean that we have a spiritual likeness with God, that we are able to receive Him and He is able to receive us in our daily lives.

kiffer wrote: »

Hum... What has God done in your life? I don't mean to be confrontational here... It's just that when people say things like ".. what God has done in my life..." I get a little confused... Generally it looks like people are thanking God for the actions of Free Willed Humans... although that's putting it simply.

Totally changed my views, and my way of action to other people. That is the most radical change I have seen. If I look back to the way that I used to act there was not much really Christian about it. God has given me a meaning and a purpose that I never had before, and a deep spiritual connection with Him in my life. I could go on about specific events, but I think I should keep it short and sweet on a thread like this.

kiffer wrote: »

Ok. as I said ... the lads over on the Christianity forum have made this case pretty strongly before... TBH I don't consider God being the same in the OT and the NT to be necessarily a good thing...

Consider it what you want. I believe the OT God to be about as just and as fair to His people than the God portrayed in the NT except for the idea of the atonement by the cross coming into it. I can't help but thinking that when atheists mean the OT God they do not mean the whole OT or even most of it when they are referring to it, only the times when God (rightfully) judges those who transgressed His command.

kiffer wrote: »

And I think that if God is the invention of man He does not necessarily know what is best / not best... OR even if he is not purely an invention of man then we do commonly just make up attributes for our gods based on our needs at the time...

You can think that all you want. However, I don't think the idea of God in the Biblical record has changed from the 1st to the 20th if we are to consider the Biblical text hasn't changed either.

kiffer wrote: »

... isn't it amazing how two people can be on completely different wavelengths when it comes to thinking about an issue ...

It is quite.

kiffer wrote: »

I'm working off the assumption that Hell is a place of eternal and unrelenting torture as per biblical descriptions... I understand that you maybe working off a different softer less disgusting definition, such as "existing outside of the knowledge of God" or "Oblivion, True Death"... before I go on and try to make clear my objection to the Hell idea and the idea of Justification by Faith alone, please let us know what you actually think "Hell" means/is.

I consider hell to be a place of eternal punishment too for those who reject Christ and reject God on the day of Judgement. All have fallen short of God's glory, therefore all need salvation.

kiffer wrote: »

:-) interesting... if they find it personally satisfying based on their research how can you claim that it is fruitless in terms of truth value? after all you are using similar criteria to decide that your beliefs are of Fruitful Truth Value...

I personally find them fruitless because I believe all will be judged by Jesus anyway. That was the idea I intended.

kiffer wrote: »

I disagree. Either human life has a fundamental objective value and it is wrong to kill and that applies to a creator... or the creator is not subject to this valuation in which case it's not an objective value...

Actually if God is an authority figure above us, it is up to Him how he decides to punish us for our transgressions. I deem it entirely justified that if people violate this that God can take away their life.

kiffer wrote: »

The parent does not have the right to kill their child... but as someone pointed out we don't "Create" our children we merely reproduce...
What if we built from scratch a True AI? a self-aware sophont... would we have the right to kill it on a whim as you would suggest God has with us?

You answered your own question. See in bold.

It's not on a whim that anyone was punished in the Biblical record. So therefore your hypothetical doesn't really apply to God. God waited for a very very long time before He deemed it necessary to punish His people. Look in 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, and so on to see how much transgression Israel and Judah had built up before they got punished for it by invasion from Assyria and Babylon.

kiffer wrote: »

Well... Too be honest... mostly I believe that they are seeing patterns which probably aren't there... confirmation bias, co-incidence, Thanking God for things you should be thanking other humans for... and so on.

Do you ever think that atheists might be guilty of confirmation bias? Notable point though, perhaps I am.

kiffer wrote: »

I really think that people have shockingly different thought processes...

Indeed.

Naz_st wrote: »

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

I don't advocate the first as that would make God a contingent being, and I advocate the second as that would make God a necessary being. See what I wrote to kiffer about an infinite regress.

Naz_st wrote: »

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

It really isn't. We know that the Universe was created, compared to the belief that God was timeless which I would hold.

Naz_st wrote: »

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

We really couldn't. The Universe was created a finite amount of time ago. Therefore the Universe is contingent and not necessary. It did not come before all else.

Naz_st wrote: »

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

The position concerning a contingent being creating other contingent beings doesn't work.

liamw wrote: »

I don't get this. How can you disagree that, generally, a person's religion is determined as an accident of where they were geographically born?
You can say it doesn't apply to you, but do you honestly and truly believe that if you were born in India you would still be Christian? I'm sorry, but that's very very unlikely and statistics prove it.

Did you even read my post? I said I became a Christian, and it became a part of who I am. Being Christian is now a part of who I am.

As for the accident of religion thing, I think I would always have the opportunity of finding Christianity if I was born in India or anywhere else. I don't know for sure, and I think discussing a hypothetical such as this is worthless. There have been millions of converts to Christianity in India including apologetic Ravi Zacharias.

liamw wrote: »

Secular communities? Lack of belief / atheism isn't a religion. That's like calling bald a hair style. I still believe that the environment in which you live, has a strong determining factor in what you believe.

I never said that. Do you not realise that by your definition your GAA club is a secular community, as is your local soccer team. They generally don't hold religious beliefs as a part of the game.

liamw wrote: »

The only reason I even bother in entering discussions like this is becuase so many people believe. And for me, that was one of the hardest things to accept when moving away from religion 'how can so many people be wrong?'. So I looked for reasons for it and found them. To address your response specifically, that almost looks to me like a typical cult tactic. Make the person feel special and unique.

In the atheist POV, it doesn't matter at all whether you are wrong or right. We just go into the ground. In the Christian POV it is of crucial importance. Do you come into discussions like these to cause people to become atheists like you. I'm just curious.

liamw wrote: »

It's still why a lot of people want and prefer to believe.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I just don't think it's a good reason.

liamw wrote: »

Well, I can. And it's really changed my life for the better since I've accepted it. I live my life to a much fuller degree, knowing that when I'm dead, that's it. I actually wouldn't want to live forever anyway.

Funny, I'd say the same about Christianity except for the bit about the afterlife, as I believe you are mistaken.

liamw wrote: »

Sure, Christians get morals from the Bible but they pick and choose them. And what do you think enables us to pick and choose them? BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Certain behaviours are built into us through natural selection. It all makes perfect sense, without the need to invoke the Bible. Especially considering some fallible human wrote the Bible stories. If you're going to tell me that it was the word of God passed through them, then please explain how you think that happened and why.

I don't think we do entirely no. We have a sense of right and wrong (see Romans 2) however people can be mistaken in morals. Why do you think Christians advocate many different moral standards to atheists?

I think people can only remember so much of the Bible, but I am trying to apply as much of it to my life as possible. (Where these laws have not been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Certain Torah laws have been and there is a theological case for it in the New Testament).

Actually life is meaningless without God really. We resort to inventing our own meaning which can be royally screwed up sometimes.

liamw wrote: »

It appeals to everyone on first instinct. We've already been through the Antropic Principle and other explanations so won't go there.

Yes, we have. It doesn't mean that I agree that the earth and humanity aren't important at all or that our creation wasn't amazing. Infact a bigger universe gives more awe to any creation event.

liamw wrote: »

Seems like you pick and choose.

By reading the Bible as the authors intended? The Psalms are a book of poetry, 1 Chronicles is a history book. Like how am I meant to take a passage like in 1 Samuel 5 concerning David moving from Hebron to Jerusalem to be the king of all Israel as a moral law to apply to my life? Do you realise how absurd this is.

I believe in the whole Bible and more importantly I seek revelation in all of the Bible, I merely read in context which is what all people should be doing.

What is with the notion from atheists constantly that the Bible is merely a book of morals? It would indicate to me that you haven't read much of it.

liamw wrote: »

The existance if an archaeological site does nothing to show that a supernatural event happened. That's like me making up a story about how a guy jumped off the spire in the city and flew around for a minute, and then saying it's probably true becuase the spire exists.

I didn't say that. I personally think Sam Vimes should have had the courtesy to let me speak for myself however

If archaeological sites correlate heavily with the Biblical record, it is an indication that there is a level of truth in the Biblical text. It's not a proof of the Bible, I never said it was. I think atheists have difficulty discerning between evidence by indication and evidence by proof.

This is merely 1 indication. I've found the more that pile up the more reason there is to consider that the Bible might just be true.

liamw wrote: »

Can you give an example please? I certainly don't think you are lying to me, but you should remember that the brain is very powerful. It takes a very critical person to have what seems to be a 'spiritual experience' and acknowledge it was only his mind playing tricks.

Sure. This was one of the things I used to notice when I started to read the Bible, pray, and go to church in particular. Bear in mind I went to church a long time before this happened although even as an agnostic this feeling started to play with my mind for a while before I accepted God.

When I do these things, I suddenly feel a very strong sense of purpose, and awe, it was like nothing I could experience doing anything else. As I continued to read I continued to get a confidence through this feeling that what I was reading was truth. I believe this was the Holy Spirit, other people might disagree with me, but it is one of the greatest witnesses in my belief in God.

I'll get x, y, and z saying that I have mental delusions now. I really don't care due to the fact I know that people cannot judge until they have had the same feelings as me concerning the Gospel, and I've talked to many Christians about this in the past and they find the same things in common.

liamw wrote: »

I wouldn't say I ruled out the supernatural, but for every so called 'supernatural event' there is usually a perfectly reasonable natural explanation that can be adopted instead.

I'd argue there isn't one in quite a few cases.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough. I would hold the view of necessary and contingent beings advocated by philosophers such as Avicenna and Aquinas. If someone retorts with the infinite regress I would advise them to look at the brilliant work of Sadowsky showing how this simply couldn't be the case and that a necessary being is indeed necessary for contingent beings to come into existence. If we were speaking entirely about contingent beings (beings that are said to either exist or not exist) then I would totally understand your objection, as it makes little sense that something that could exist or not exist could also create everything else if I am to go along the lines of the cosmological argument.

This is the only link I could find to the Sadowsky article or elements of it:
http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskyendlessregress.htm

Why can't the universe be a necessary being?

Why is it so easy for you to believe this, and yet you can't get your head around a universe that created itself? They're both really difficult concepts for any human to comprehend, and I think I speak objectively when I say neither is an easier concept to accept or dismiss logically.

The reason for this, you have outlined later in your post:

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you ever think that atheists might be guilty of confirmation bias? Notable point though, perhaps I am.

Jakkass, without meaning to be overtly judgmental, you are one of the greatest examples of someone led by confirmation bias I have come across. You seem well read in a huge range of pro-Christian literature, CS Lewis being probably the most notable, but you have stated outright here that you don't find science interesting and admitted that you haven't read much on the subject. You've admitted to not really researching other religions either. It seems that you do a lot of research into material that supports your position and form a lot of seemingly intellectual reasons for and insights about your belief, yet being entirely formed without having given any time to any other theory (you may have read a few non-Christian books, but I bet you immediately consider them invalid (It's perhaps even a subconscious reaction) because some Christian writer wrote something contrary), you come off badly in debates a lot of the time, dismissing crucial points made against your arguments or fobbing people off with the title of a book.

Are atheists guilty of confirmation bias? No. A lack of belief doesn't need to be confirmed IMO. If you're perfectly happy with your life, don't "feel the presence of God" or whatever, I don't think you need anything to confirm God's non-existence to justify your position.

Anti-theists however, those who will go out of their way to attempt to disprove God, who are essentially attempting to confirm the non-existence of God. Yes, they are frequently guilty of confirmation bias.

philologos

JC 2K3: I'm not interested in researching other religions? How do you know that?

I have material from Hare Krishnas, I've read sections of the Qur'an (which I own) and other Islamic material, I also have two copies of the book of Mormon, one thick and one thin I have yet to take a look at these.

I've also read a good bit of the God Delusion, and I may get Hitchen's God is Not Great and other books when I can.

As I say I don't think you really knew how much I actually do consider other viewpoints, it was a bit of a rash judgement though don't you think?

As for science, unfortunately it was butchered for me in school. I didn't find my teacher to be very interesting and maybe that finished me with it. I would be interested in studying it personally but I don't see how this would lead me to atheism necessarily.

JimiTime

Naz_st wrote: »

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

Certainly not. One of the big fallacies of the God debate IMO. We and the universe exist in the Natural world and see its laws etc. So in this natural universe, we canot fathom the universe always existing etc. However, knowing that God is the creator of such laws, and indeed the natural universe, I don't have to apply the natural laws to him, for he is, for want of a better term, the inventor. Saying that we must apply his own natural laws to him is foolish. So God always being there, and the universe alway being there are infinately different concepts.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't say that. I personally think Sam Vimes should have had the courtesy to let me speak for myself however

If archaeological sites correlate heavily with the Biblical record, it is an indication that there is a level of truth in the Biblical text. It's not a proof of the Bible, I never said it was. I think atheists have difficulty discerning between evidence by indication and evidence by proof.

This is merely 1 indication. I've found the more that pile up the more reason there is to consider that the Bible might just be true.

I suppose I can acknowledge that in a way. I can see how the discovery of an ancient city called Sodom which was destroyed might mean that the chances of the story about it being true would go from 0.0001% to 0.00100000000000000000005%. The same could be said of The Da Vinci code and the spire of course. To suggest that the increase in probability is anything but completely negligible is ridiculous though, ie the increase in probability is so incredibly low that it is not worth mentioning and it certainly does not belong on a proudly displayed list of reasons for believing in the story.


Tell me Jakkass, what is the difference between the following story and yours? Why is it that mine is clearly ridiculous and yours can be seen as evidence for christianity:

There's a nuclear war and New York is buried. 1000 years from now the city is unearthed and the archaeologists stand there open mouthed and declare: "Wow! That means King Kong was most likely real!!"

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

We know that the Universe was created

We do? Who is this "we" and how do they know that?

The Universe was created a finite amount of time ago.

Well, the "Big Bang" happened a finite amount ago - what "existed" before that is an open question. Big Bang -> Big Crunch -> Big Bang ad nauseum is one possible scenario.

Therefore the Universe is contingent and not necessary.

Not necessary for what?

Our existence is contingent on the Universe's existence, after that it's just speculation.

Naz_st

JimiTime wrote: »

Certainly not. One of the big fallacies of the God debate IMO. We and the universe exist in the Natural world and see its laws etc.

Not as big a fallacy as the "God Exists outside the natural universe and therefore is not subject to its laws" fallacy. The religious "Get out of jail free card" in the cosmological argument.

So in this natural universe, we canot fathom the universe always existing etc.

Why not?

However, knowing that God is the creator of such laws, and indeed the natural universe, I don't have to apply the natural laws to him, for he is, for want of a better term, the inventor.

How does something exist outside of space and time? What is it made of? How does it interact with space and time if it is immaterial? Cue "Get out of Jail free card #2": God works in mysterious ways.

Saying that we must apply his own natural laws to him is foolish. So God always being there...

God always "being" where - you just said he doesn't exist in space or time??

...and the universe alway being there are infinately different concepts.

Only in your head.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

So in this natural universe, we canot fathom the universe always existing etc.

Why not?

And of course, just because we cannot fathom it, doesn't mean it's not the case. It's also hard to fathom 11 dimensions but the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction

OK-Cancel-Apply

I think the 'in their shoes' thing was done before. I can't remember what I wrote in it so I just want to say that some Christians believe what they believe partly because it was hammered mercilessly into them in childhood, and partly because in adulthood, they don't want to disappoint their parents. Some feel too guilty even questioning the idea of not 'believing' in it.

philologos

Again, OK-Cancel-Apply, you're not getting the idea of the thread.

No Christian would say it was "hammered mercilessly" into them. I personally don't think that is true in my situation. As for "mercilessly" even if parents taught their child Christianity it would be out of mercy quite frankly preventing them from eternal damnation.

As for faith and parents. You have to let go and live for yourself eventually. You have to form your own religious views.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me Jakkass, what is the difference between the following story and yours? Why is it that mine is clearly ridiculous and yours can be seen as evidence for christianity:

There's a nuclear war and New York is buried. 1000 years from now the city is unearthed and the archaeologists stand there open mouthed and declare: "Wow! That means King Kong was most likely real!!"

If that were the only indication for Christianity. Perhaps your point would have merit, infact it would have a lot of merit. However it is the amount of indication that causes me to think that it is indeed true.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If that were the only indication for Christianity. Perhaps your point would have merit, infact it would have a lot of merit. However it is the amount of indication that causes me to think that it is indeed true.

That sounds to me like the old phrase: "anecdote + anecdote + anecdote=fact".

Even if you had 1000 indications, all of equal validity as the Sodom one, the likelihood would only increase from 0.001% to 0.00100000000000000005%. It is an incredibly weak argument no matter what way you look at it. Can you imagine someone saying in a court of law:

"We don't have proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the book depository but the book depository definitely exists so I want to submit that as evidence by indication"

philologos

How did you calculate that percent? See why are you expecting your norms to be applicable to me? This is what I find awkward about our discussions. We are different people Sam please remember that.

I never said it equalled fact so can I conclude that is a strawman? I like you base my beliefs upon probability. It is more likely to me that God exists rather than not.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

... I like you base my beliefs upon probability. It is more likely to me that God exists rather than not.

Based on probability?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

How did you calculate that percent? See why are you expecting your norms to be applicable to me? This is what I find awkward about our discussions. We are different people Sam please remember that.

I calculated that percentage based on the fact that it is incredibly obvious to anyone who does not have a bias towards wanting something to be true. And you would apply roughly the same percentage to any story that did not support your beliefs.

You said:

Jakkass wrote:

If that were the only indication for Christianity. Perhaps your point would have merit, infact it would have a lot of merit

So you acknowledge that this event alone would be very weak. I placed the rough figure of 0.00000000000000000000005% on the probability. You may disagree with the exact figure but you acknowledge that it is low enough to be comparable to the King Kong story, which is obviously ridiculous

If you think that the existence of other indications somehow makes the strength of this indication any higher then you are showing a lack of understanding of probability. Two independent events cannot affect each other's probability. It's like saying that if you throw a 6 on one dice it makes it more likely than you'll throw a 6 on another one. The probability of Sodom existing indicating god's existence remains exactly the same regardless of how many other indications there may be, ie extremely and negligibly low. It is always comparable to the King Kong story and never makes any more sense.

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said it equalled fact so can I conclude that is a strawman? I like you base my beliefs upon probability. It is more likely to me that God exists rather than not.

I said that it reminded me of the phrase because the basic logic is the same, not that you said it was a fact. The phrase just goes slightly further than you did.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That sounds to me like the old phrase: "anecdote + anecdote + anecdote=fact".

Even if you had 1000 indications, all of equal validity as the Sodom one, the likelihood would only increase from 0.001% to 0.00100000000000000005%. It is an incredibly weak argument no matter what way you look at it. Can you imagine someone saying in a court of law:

"We don't have proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the book depository but the book depository definitely exists so I want to submit that as evidence by indication"

I'd actually approach the weakness of the argument from a different perspective. Let's take my spire example again. What we are trying to prove here is that the guy flew around.

Jakkass, you say your argument becomes stronger with more indications. Fine, let's say I have the existence of the spire, the existence of the ground he landed on, the existence of his picture just before he jumped, a picture just after he lands. Unfortunately I have no evidence or proof to indicate that he actually flew, but hey it probably happened given all the other indications right?!

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

I'd actually approach the weakness of the argument from a different perspective. Let's take my spire example again. What we are trying to prove here is that the guy flew around.

Jakkass, you say your argument becomes stronger with more indications. Fine, let's say I have the existence of the spire, the existence of the ground he landed on, the existence of his picture just before he jumped, a picture just after he lands. Unfortunately I have no evidence or proof to indicate that he actually flew, but hey it probably happened given all the other indications right?!

Don't forget that you have the existence of the guy himself, the existence of O'Connell street, the existence of guys in general, the existence of animals that are capable of flying, etc etc etc. We might even have a book that says that 500 people saw him fly (we don't have the 500 people to give testimony though, just a claim from one source that 500 people saw it, the guy who wrote it is dead and the source is the same one where the before and after pictures came from).

The two tiny unimportant indications that we are missing is any indication whatsoever that it is in any way possible for a man to fly and any direct evidence that the claimed event actually happened. But that doesn't matter

Sam Vimes

Btw, people might well be wondering why I am now responding to Jakkass having said I put him on ignore last week. Well we trashed it out in pm's and I have agreed to stop being antagonistic towards him as long as he agrees to stop selectively ignoring people responding to him and then making the same points later on to which he had previously not responded.

So it's all good

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

JC 2K3: I'm not interested in researching other religions? How do you know that?

I have material from Hare Krishnas, I've read sections of the Qur'an (which I own) and other Islamic material, I also have two copies of the book of Mormon, one thick and one thin I have yet to take a look at these.

I've also read a good bit of the God Delusion, and I may get Hitchen's God is Not Great and other books when I can.

As I say I don't think you really knew how much I actually do consider other viewpoints, it was a bit of a rash judgement though don't you think?

I think you consider how Christianity is superior or more correct than any alternative viewpoint you read about, as opposed to actually considering the other viewpoints.

Ok, I don't know you that well. I am jumping to possibly unfair judgment. But it's what I've sensed strongly from you in many threads.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for science, unfortunately it was butchered for me in school. I didn't find my teacher to be very interesting and maybe that finished me with it. I would be interested in studying it personally but I don't see how this would lead me to atheism necessarily.

Wouldn't lead you to believe in atheism directly, but I'm of the opinion that some grounding in science is very important for anyone wishing to explore the question of life, the universe and everything.

philologos

JC 2K3: I argue that there are similarities between Christianity and other religions. If Christianity is the truth and if there are similarities in other religions. Therefore it is safe to say that other religions contain elements of the truth. That's pretty much logical I would have thought. I consider these views, I personally believe mine to be true yes, but this doesn't stop me learning about other people.

On science:
I'm willing to let you recommend me any good books about evolutionary biology, physics, and so on and when I get the time I will read them. I don't have an aversion to it, infact it's something I feel I am lacking in when I am defending my faith. Infact please if any of you have any material I should read on this please PM me, preferably without a bias to atheism.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass, I have given you ample time to respond to my posts and you have been responding to other posts so I can deduce that you have had time to get around to it and have chosen not to.

You have not responded to this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60141836&postcount=111

or this post from the "Gripes with your own" thread:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60141655&postcount=101

As per our agreement, I will now assume that you accept both points and I expect that from now on

• You will not claim that the existence of Sodom indicates the existence of God or any related argument. This includes removing numbers 6 and 7 on your "7 Reasons Why I Believe In Christianity"
• You will not imply that morality requires religion in any way because you now accept that it exists independently of religion

If you do not accept both points, I ask that you respond explaining the flaws in my reasoning

philologos

Sam Vimes: I don't want to get into yet another argument about evidence here, infact other users advised me not to a few pages ago, and I think it's fair that I keep to that. It would be a huge tangent from the true intention of the thread to do this.

In addition, I won't be removing anything from my 7 reasons. I consider these to remain valid. These are indications that the Biblical text retains validity on certain issues, I never intended it to be a fully conclusive 100% note that God exists or that the Bible is 100% valid, it's merely an indication towards that. As such I won't be removing it or any of my views as this was not a part of the agreement.

Also I never said that morality requires religion. I do however argue that true and valid morals come from God. I will be holding to this belief as a Christian. Secondly, I do agree that humans have a natural sense of right and wrong, hence why Paul says that the Gentile can follow the law without having ever heard it and so be justified morally. (Read Romans chapter 2). This is my view and I will not be retracting it unless there is a seriously good refutation to it.

Listen and listen good, just because you do not accept something does not mean that I cannot also accept something. I won't be pressured into retracting any opinion of mine publically. That was never a part of the agreement we came to.

This discussion was never intended to be about evidence, it was never intended to be about "winning" an argument. I believe that discussion is about more than just "winning" or "losing". I asked you to reconsider your understanding behind discussion. I won't be getting into a "winning" or "losing" argument with anyone on this forum. That's not my intention. My intention is to shed light on my understanding of Christianity, that's the best I can do.

Would you mind doing what the OP asks I'd be interested in your thoughts on it as opposed to tangents.

Sam Vimes

You were prepared to get into yet another argument up to a certain point, imo the point that you couldn't think of anything to say as usual. Part of our agreement was that you wouldn't avoid questions with excuses which is what you've just done.

When I deliberately didn't respond to part of your pm you took that as me accepting the point but I can't do the same with yourself. You just stop responding randomly without conceding the point or defending your case which has always been the problem. You deny this but it's what you've just done

So unless someone here has a major objection to you explaining the flaw in my logic, I'd ask you to either go ahead and do that or concede the point and remove those two ridiculously weak arguments from your 7 reasons

Sam Vimes

As for the OP, everyone knows why people think they believe in religion. They tell us all the time

Examples would be:
The universe can't have come from nothing

So many people can't be wrong

The historicity of the bible

It gives them comfort

There must be a god

Social reasons, they want to be accepted and have a sense of community

Of course each of those arguments has it's own flaws, I don't think any of them indicate the existence of god but I know other people do

philologos

I have plenty more to say on it. I started this thread so as not to get into an argument. Unfortunately this started to happen. I'm putting an end to it on my part. I'd far prefer people to discuss the individual reasons people have for either or for people to respond to post 83 and get on with a reasonable sharing of ideas.

As for "logic". This isn't a universal, it's a particular for you. Lets have that straight before we have the same mumbo jumbo that we usually start having here.

I'm not interested in petty arguments, I'm far more interested in actually doing something that could be semi-productive. That's why I started this and the gripes thread. Both have been dissapointing, this one less so than the gripes thread. I do want to thank all who actually gave this idea a shot instead of complaining about it.

I would also appreciate it if you stop trolling me. 6 and 7 are entirely valid reasons and indicating for faith or God's lack of existence is the only way we can actually do it. I will discuss this on another thread if necessary. You have already broken the agreement we made however concerning the means of discussion I asked you not to get into a "winning" or "losing" argument. The God question is not as simple as that.