Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What makes you believe?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yes it would be a difficult test to conduct, which is why I said "in principle" :pac: Although, it is worth noting that some Christians are quite adamant that there prayers are routinely answered. I think I have commented here before on the extraordinary (to my mind) idea in the RC tradition of the published prayer which is never known to fail! The latter could easily be tested if it were not for the unfortunate prohibition on testing God!Fanny Cradock wrote: »In principle one could in part attempt to test such things. The rather large obstacle to this is that we don't know very much about the God (he has many omni's associated with his nature, while we have none) or his methods.
But I wasn't just thinking of prayers. We could potentially have a closer look at the various claims of miracles made for those en route to RC sainthood. Indeed, once my time machine is perfected, first trip will be to round about 30-33 AD, where I'd be having a proper good look at a certain charismatic preacher in the East. :P 0 -
-
-
-
-
Those were largely rhetorical questions, but seems as you answered...100% true.
Every theory is usually built off another's foundations. However, the point here is that the need for a new theory usually arises from finding out something that is incorrect about the present accepted theory. The only way you can find out if something is wrong with a present theory is to test it vigorously, thereby automatically assuming it to be wrong and trying to find out where.
I don't know where you are getting this from. You test a theory in order to determine the accuracy of its propositions, one does not go out with the specific intention to destroy them. At a more fundamental level is the belief that there is order in nature - hence our attempts to pen laws. Again, it is assumed by science that the universe is sufficiently intelligible so that the laws we write accurately reflect nature. While our attempts to pen laws may be less than perfect, the notion that the universe possess order is not in question, AFAIK.
But perhaps this is better suited to the Science Forum.
(As an addendum to my previous statement about metaphysics, I should have added the obvious point that the question of God is also most definitely part of the realm of theology.)Clearly not! Such a killing would be of no advantage to the killer and would really only result in energy wasted. If times were extremely tough, we wouldn't waste any unnecessary energy killing any organism that didn't carry some practical benefit.
This is a bit of a leap. Who said anything about energy being a factor? For the purposes of my question, I was assuming that energy was never a factor and the killer gains a practical benefit from murder. Perhaps it's the joy from killing and the delight at proving themselves superior to the authorities, possibly there is some financial benefit like a life issuance pay-out, or maybe, in similar vein to Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, the murderer is making a grotesque suit.Yes and no.
Art is a subjective thing really. Some find it beautiful whereas others don't.
Science can do two principle things here:
1) It can help explain why people like certain forms of art.
2) It can also help deduce the most probable forms of art a person may be predisposed into liking.
It is worth noting though that at the present time we do not yet fully understand what our neurons do to create such opinions of like or dislike for art (or anything else for that matter). We know they do something, but we can't really grasp what. It is also worth noting too that this "neuron" situation is identical to the problem we first had when it came to grasping the fundamental reality of genes affecting the cells. So there is still no reason to suggest we won't be able to "grab a memory or thought" so to speak, but we do know it's going to be bloody complicated.
Furthermore, by advancing science artists can advance art. Is it really possible that 400 years ago any artist could have dreamed up a painting of reality as beautiful and bizarre as the one that modern science reveals to us?
Hmm...maybe.:)
Finally, science through evolution, tell us that there will always be new and wholly unique individuals. So there should be no shortage of creativity in the future generations to come either.
So what? None of that answers the original question: "is art good?". Accurately predicting if someone will find a particular piece of art agreeable is not the same as answering the larger question. As a matter of interest, do you think that the concept of beauty (not the personal preference of what is beautiful and what isn't) exists solely in the mind of the individual? Or is it something that is independent of us?Yes, indeed there is.
Through the course of several billion years of evolution. Animals, including us, have evolved varying levels of intelligence and emotions. In fact, some animals excel at stuff better than we do. No surprise really we you think about how weak we really are when pitted against a wild animal while having the good fortune of being alone and unarmed. One of the things that has evolved in all animals is some kind of moral compass.
There is obviously good and evil because we are all innately aware of such concepts (well, the vast majority anyways are innately aware). Whether these exist as relative concepts or if there is an absolute level to good/evil, is most likely a question science will not be able to answer in the short run. In the long run, assuming humanity survives for billions* of years, who knows? One things for sure - morals came about very slowly.
*It may only be a year before we answer it or it could be billions.
Again, that doesn't address the question - at least not head on. It simply shifts it ever so slightly off centre. If somebody asks, "assuming I can get away with my infidelity, is it good (perhaps a definition is required, but I hope you understand that I use it in a Christian context) to cheat on my wife?" What can science tell you about that?
For all your words, I haven't been able to see any succinct answers to any of my questions
While science is good at making predictions (I'm not in any way engaging in 'science bashing'), I maintain that it tells us absolutely nothing about the morality of using cluster-bombs or raping for fun.
Do you find you often use science to address the questions of morality that confront you in your life?0 -
-
If I may enter the debate:Hello there Jakkass. You seem a decent, kind hearted sort and are not exactly the kind of figure who would bring Christianity into disrepute through excessive zeal and savagery. Just thought I should point that out
With regards to the quoted statement above, I don't think there is that much debate about how authentic the bible manuscripts are - the editing which has taken place has been relatively minimal, considering we have a lot of originals to compare with. Most of the problems really lie in translation, and in those who take the words of the Bible literally. And there is also the historical problem associated with which gospels were accepted when the Church organised itself properly for the first time, and the reasons for why they were excluded. In my opinion this takes much of the halo away from the four gospels, since they were written by fallible men, chosen by fallible men for mainly political reasons, and are alike to the other gospels written but discarded, and forgotten by only the most archaic of scholars. The four gospels in this sense, are far from satisfactory.
A literal reading of the Bible scares the hell out of me to be honest, and its perhaps the one criteria in my mind which distinguishes a fundamentalist from a thoughtful Christian. The problem with the Gospels is not that they were 'invented' but that they were exaggerated; I think there is little doubt that the words of the Bible as written by their respective authors are genuine - the problem is that the people who wrote them are mere mortals, and hence fallible. Which is why when I read the bible (And I have read it numerous times, as well as having read the Koran) I read it as a philosophical tract, not an historical work, or even a literal religious narrative. The gospels are a hagiography, no more, no less, written by mortal men for other mortal men, which are abused, misquoted and misunderstood to the extent that only mortal men are guilty of.
P.S- I also have always found it curious when the religious quote other parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as a substitute for the Gospels of Jesus Christ - why is that important exactly? Why does a Christian not simply concentrate all his energies on the actual gospels that deals with his life and times? I don't really see how a Christian can consider St. Paul as relevant in any way other than the fact that he was supposedly 'consumed' by God. Christ, as the son of God, should be the forefront and sole arbiter of the Christian faith - why do the prophets of the Old Testament and St. Paul regularly get rolled out in discussions like these?
P.P.S- I am aware that Jesus said something along the lines of 'not forgetting those who came before me', but still.
The Bible, NT and OT, is not regarded by its writers nor by Christ Himself as merely the words of men. It is the word of God to men, given through holy men as they were moved by God the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)
John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus's recorded words in the NT are not all He taught. The apostles brought the rest to us, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. And as can be seen from above, Jesus taught that the OT was also God's word.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Denerick said:
Both the likelihood of them happening after I prayed for them, and the fact that for some I had the assurance beforehand that they were going to be granted.Quote:
I find support for that in the many times God has specifically intervened for me in answer to prayer, and in seeing Him do so for others.
How? How can you be sure it wasn't a coincidence?
Because given their history, it was humanly unlikely they would survive as a distinct people - yet the Bible would have been falsified if they had not.Quote:
Supporting evidence is also found in how history has developed in regard to the survival of the Jews and the survival of the gospel and the Church.
Why is the survival of the Jews in any way 'evidence'?
Ditto with the above.How is the survival of the Gospel?
I'm not referring to the documents, but to the Church that preaches their message.What of Plato's 'Republic'? Or any of the Greek epics? They predate the Gospels? Why is it important that the Gospels survived? Its not particularly unusual.
Authentic Christianity, as distinct from the powerful organisations that claim the title, has generally been despised and persecuted from its foundation. I find its survival more than to be expected naturally. The same gospel message that the apostolic church preached is being preached throughout the world today.And whats this about the 'survival of the church'? Why is that unusual in your eyes? How is that even remotely relevant as some kind of historical evidence which proves the authenticity of the Christian faith? What about the various religions which predate Christianity and still thrive in the world today? How does the fact of Christianity's continued survival actually prove anything?
None of those authors offered the comprehensive explanation of our physical and spiritual origins and development the Bible does. Atheistic evolution offers a comprehensive explanation, but not one that matches the physical and spiritual evidence I see.Quote:
The message of the Bible also makes sense of the world we see - accounts for its beauty and horror, accounts for man and his meaning/purpose.
But so does Dickens! And Huxley, and Eco, and Golding, and Steinbeck, and Hugo, and Zola, and pretty much any half talented author in the history of the world! I don't see how this is re-inforcing your faith to be honest!?
Doubting the assumptions is my doubt on the darkest occasions. The evidence reminds me in the dark of what I knew in the light.Quote:
I only occasionally question if God is real or am I imagining it all. Once I review the evidence, I am fully persuaded.
Do you not stop to question your own assumptions though? I'm plagued by these doubts. I'm a doubting agnostic you might almost say
But it makes sense for you to be so troubled with doubt - you have not found any conclusive answer.
My apologies if I confused you. I do not mean if one is wrong about one thing they must be wrong about anything else. Rather, that their cock-sure certainty of their case and dismissal of their evolutionary colleague's arguments just shows one cannot take their assurances of certainty about evolution seriously.Quote:
Specific doubts - can so many scientists be right about evolution and so few contradict, if the Bible is true? I examine the way the majority of scientists arrive at their conclusions, how they treat other competing theories, and how they answer the creationist scientists. That gives me reasonable assurance that their case is far from water-tight. I move on to the more certain ground of the Bible and see if it is open to re-interpretation. I find it not on the basic evolutionary case. So I am even more assured that what I have found trustworthy on heavenly matters is also trustworthy on earthly matters.
I'm sorry, but it is getting hard to take this argument seriously. Spirituality and science are by nature polar opposites, but they don't have to endure apartheid. The scientific method is all about doubt and questioning consensus - this doesn't mean that the scientific method is incorrect, in fact it proves that it works. You don't have to make it into a bipolar argument i.e, 'well if science got x wrong, then surely its wrong about y as well'? I'm confused.
Because God tells me so.Quote:
Yes, I believe in an eternity of happiness in Heaven with God, and an eternity of woe in Gehenna without God.
Why?
I can say that because God tells me that is how we think in our hearts, and because I was that soldier.Quote:
Your innate sense of 'perfection' is what God put in each of our hearts. We all know life is not the materialist accident atheism proclaims - but our hearts are naturally in rebellion against God and we suppress much of it or subvert it to belief in false gods.
I also find this rather hard to stomach. How can you speak on behalf of any atheist? Its rather arrogant. My heart is not in 'rebellion' against God, its in rebellion are irrationality. I'm trying to explore whether faith and reason can co-incide - I believe they can, but it requires a certain amount of 'leaping'.
You are just not aware of the depth of depravity in every human soul, nor the blindness to the truth they are naturally in.
Paul and the apostles were appointed by Christ to be apostles - those sent by God with the gospel message and with the ability to infallibly teach all that God wishes us to know.Quote:
Here's some good news for you:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
To be perfectly honest, I don't see why St. Paul is in anyway relevant. He's not Jesus Christ, and to be honest the way people like to quote anything other than Christ from the gospels in conversations like these are one of the main reasons why I'm suspicious of Christians as a whole. (In case that comes out wrong, I mean to say that I'm suspicious about whether you stop to think if Jesus is the centre of your faith, or if those who came before and after him are? In my unlearned opinion, the Christian religion should begin and end with the gospels that deal with the life and times of Jesus Christ)
The Bible writers were not giving us merely their words, but the words God directed them to bring.
No offence taken. Glad to have plain speaking.I hope you don't take offense - that wasn't necessarily directed at you personally, but on the mindset of Christianity you represent. Anyone is free to respond and I apologise if I come off as being a little harsh. 0 -
-
At best we'd say there was at least a possibility of it being the case. I.E Why would one rule something out without investigation. 
Advertisement