pauldla wrote: » Omnipotent, omnisicient and omnipresent? He is is own First Cause? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to consider these ideas logical, or logically.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » After all, I would have thought that for you, the atheist(?), the universe, or some flavour of multiverse, rests upon infinite regress or an eternally uncaused past.
philologos wrote: » I have extensively. It's why I rejected agnosticism about 5 years ago and decided to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour and follow Him. Simply put, I find the atheistic naturalism that you guys put across as deeply lacking, on a logical level as well as on any other level. Christianity provides a much better explanation for why we are the way we are as human beings than atheism does. Christianity explains the fallen state of man, much much better than atheism does. It gives a robust explanation as to why this world is as screwed up as it is, and indeed it provides a solution to it - namely that Jesus stood in my place (and yours if you're willing to accept it) and by His blood He paid the price for sin. Atheism - offers nothing.
Tim Robbins wrote: » Again, a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism does not make any claim to answer every single question of the universe. It just rejects the various religious answers made by various religions.
Zombrex wrote: » Hogwash. Point out the bit where Christianity explains the Columbine massacre or the Batman shootings (both explained by naturalistic explanations about the mental state of the shooters, not some fuzzy nonsense about a tendency to sin). Heck point out where Christianity provides a "robust" explanation for any thing a human has ever done! Christianity just says that people have evil tendencies because some non-descript event took place a few thousand years ago when "sin" entered the world. The detail is practically non-existent. Why do some have more evil tendencies than others, why do some people skin cats while others beat their wives, why do some people commit insurance fraud while some burn down schools in Alabama. Christianity has nothing to say on the matter. Good luck getting the Christian explanation submitted into a pyschological evaluation in a criminal trail. Why did the defendant shoot up the building? Well you know, tendency to sin your honour, clearly there is nothing more than needs to be said! :rolleyes: Christianity explains these things the way saying "Well some times bad things happen to good people" explains 9/11 or the Iraq war.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Difficulty or lack of understanding does not make something logically untenable. Could you, for example, explain to me why the idea of a First Cause is logically impossible? You haven't done so... yet. After all, I would have thought that for you, the atheist(?), the universe, or some flavour of multiverse, rests upon infinite regress or an eternally uncaused past. Indeed, up until the 60's it was not unheard of to find well respected scientists who thought that our universe did not have a beginning and that it always existed. Fred Hoyle would be one example. What would be your view on these matters?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » The Bible actually doesn't mention "a few thousand years" at all. And we aren't proposing that it is either the doctrine of sin or psychological evaluation. I imagine that most Christians would accept psychological analysis as being valid while also recognising that there is a larger problem that lies a level deeper. And this would be what we call sin.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Furthermore, your summation of what Christianity says is knowingly inadequate. The message isn't that bad stuff happens to good people therefore Auschwitz or no parking spaces.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Rather, the message is that the world is broken by evil (and this is the objective evil that you reject) but we should have hope that something was, is and will be something done about it. If you are going to offer an explanation of what other people believe at least try to do a half-decent job of it.
nagirrac wrote: » If we accept that the material universe as we know it came into being with the big bang we have to accept that all the laws that governed its evolution from quarks to atoms to suns to planets to lifeforms to humans were in existence at the instant of the big bang. Surely we have to confront the question of where did such a wonderous and complex set of laws come from? We also have to accept that time as we know it came into being at the instant of the big bang and therefore there was no "before" in terms of our understading of time. This is where most of the confusion is, we are limited by linear thinking and that everything has a past and a future. The concept of "God" is that there is a reality outside our material world that gives our world its substance and that it is a reality with the intelligence to design sets of laws to create a physical universe like ours. I can only think of this as mind but what kind of mind is unknown to us. Maybe this is a simulation and we have no more free will than a character in WOW but we currently have about as much understanding of it as a fish has looking out of an aquarium.
Zombrex wrote: » Its like finding a Lego block and pondering what must have made it, but imagining that the entire Lego factory that did can just exist.
Zombrex wrote: » If we require an intelligence to have constructed the laws and principles of this universe then why would we not require another intelligence to create this intelligence.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » I think a good way of putting it is that the assumption being made is that you cannot make something more complicated than yourself. If that's true, then our complicated universe requires a complicated creator; but then that complicated creator needs an even more complicated creator. If, on the other hand, we accept that something simple can be the parent of something less simple, we've basically done away with the need for a complicated creator. Because everything we see might just be the result of some initially quite simple process. Or am I just complicating things?
tommy2bad wrote: » The universe is getting more complex not less.
Zombrex wrote: » philologos wrote: » I have extensively. It's why I rejected agnosticism about 5 years ago and decided to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour and follow Him. Simply put, I find the atheistic naturalism that you guys put across as deeply lacking, on a logical level as well as on any other level. Christianity provides a much better explanation for why we are the way we are as human beings than atheism does. Christianity explains the fallen state of man, much much better than atheism does. It gives a robust explanation as to why this world is as screwed up as it is, and indeed it provides a solution to it - namely that Jesus stood in my place (and yours if you're willing to accept it) and by His blood He paid the price for sin. Atheism - offers nothing. Hogwash. Point out the bit where Christianity explains the Columbine massacre or the Batman shootings (both explained by naturalistic explanations about the mental state of the shooters, not some fuzzy nonsense about a tendency to sin). Heck point out where Christianity provides a "robust" explanation for any thing a human has ever done! Christianity just says that people have evil tendencies because some non-descript event took place a few thousand years ago when "sin" entered the world. The detail is practically non-existent. Why do some have more evil tendencies than others, why do some people skin cats while others beat their wives, why do some people commit insurance fraud while some burn down schools in Alabama. Christianity has nothing to say on the matter. Good luck getting the Christian explanation submitted into a pyschological evaluation in a criminal trail. Why did the defendant shoot up the building? Well you know, tendency to sin your honour, clearly there is nothing more than needs to be said! :rolleyes: Christianity explains these things the way saying "Well some times bad things happen to good people" explains 9/11 or the Iraq war.
philologos wrote: » Yes Christianity explains these much better. It explains definitively what has happened to the human condition. You mock but realistically I do think Christianity provides a much better answer to why do bad things happen to "good" people and so on. Atheism provides no reasonable explanation for this. Rather it claims that anything we like can be moral. So the Columbine shooting or the Batman shooting in Denver could be OK it depends on the beholder. Christianity says God takes sin seriously and that He will judge those who refuse to accept His rightful rule. Atheism provides nothing.
nagirrac wrote: » That's exactly the kind of linear thinking though that confuses people. The laws of cause and effect are laws of our known physical universe. What lies behind or outside our universe is unknown to us and there is little point dwelling on it currently as the greatest human minds in history have pondered this question to no avail. The mind is the least understood aspect of our existance, imo it will take an Einstein like leap in our understanding of mind to even begin to understand the nature of God.
gvn wrote: » Why should atheism say anything of the sort? It's only a statement regarding belief. You know this, so I'm not sure why you're saying it. You're also conflating human psychology (i.e. why do humans act a certain way) with morality and ethics (i.e. what way ought humans to act.) When it comes to "why do humans act as they do," it's a question best answered by psychology, and not a question relevant to morality or ethics; psychology is a far better means of explanation than simply regarding man as bad because of "sin." This is why an atheist has no problems when it comes to questions about how man acts.
philologos wrote: » Yes Christianity explains these much better. It explains definitively what has happened to the human condition. You mock but realistically I do think Christianity provides a much better answer to why do bad things happen to "good" people and so on.
philologos wrote: » Atheism provides no reasonable explanation for this. Rather it claims that anything we like can be moral. So the Columbine shooting or the Batman shooting in Denver could be OK it depends on the beholder.
philologos wrote: » In short for now - I'll come to the rest of your posts (plural) later. You are aware that I made responses to those posts showing how they were flawed also? By the by I've responded to the second post also albeit inadvertently quite recently on After Hours. I've pointed out why I find both posts flawed as have others on this forum before. We've just looked at how Sai Baba isn't a good comparison with the Resurrection. I suggest you look back a few pages.
tommy2bad wrote: » Why Pol Pot at all? Religion if thats the question you need an answer to.
gvn wrote: » If you absolutely need an answer to such a question, then perhaps religion is your solution. But I would maintain that such a question is a meaningless one; I don't believe it's worth asking why a certain individual was born, because to me there is no "why" behind it.
tommy2bad wrote: » Well their you go. Thats the point. I wont force you to answer it if you don't force me to not ask?
lmaopml wrote: » Well, you see that's where you are making the unsubstantiated presumption that one worldview holds one back, and another doesn't based on the presumption that science only informs Atheists or that science in and of itself has an 'ethos' - it has a method, not an ethos.
Look, I get why you think what you do, but I don't subscribe to it. There's always this underlying hint that a 'shifting' ethical outlook is 'progressive' - but no reason why it is....or indeed where it's going....it's just 'shifting', and we're told that's very progressive progress to somewhere..... This is humanism though, it's not 'Science', it's a worldview.
Zombrex wrote: » If there is little point dwelling on it why propose God created the universe as opposed to anything else?
Zombrex wrote: » I don't know what you are proposing, but Phil is proposing that the Christian explanation makes far more sense and is more robust than any naturalistic explanation for human behaviour, specifically human violence. Do you agree with that?
Zombrex wrote: » I wasn't saying that the Christian message is bad things happen to good people, I was saying that the Christian message is as light weight and vacuous as someone using such an explanation to explain something as complex as 9/11 or the Iraq war.
Zombrex wrote: » I don't know, maybe some people like vacuous explanations for things, but the idea that these provide a more robust understanding of what happened and why is frankly laughable.
Zombrex wrote: » "Broken by evil"?? Can you explain the practical out come of that in any instance of violence or agression? What happens and why?
pauldla wrote: » Well, the argument from First Cause begins with the premise that everything must have a First Cause, and that’s when I start having problems with it. It seems to me that there is no reason why God should be exempt from this. I have no views on the idea of multiverses, or on infinite regress. They are interesting possibilities, and they can lead to some amazing ideas, but of course we don’t have the answers to these questions yet. Maybe we never will. I’m okay with that; in the absence of evidence, it’s perfectly reasonable to suspend judgment. But I believe we should keep asking the questions, because they are fundamental, and in looking for answers we learn the most astounding things about the universe, and our place in it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » You don't believe in evil so therefore you and Phil are both having different conversations.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Assuming we take your statement that less complex things don't give rise to more complex things (why exactly do you think this, by the way? And why do you assume that God is less complex than the universe?), the doctrine of Divine Simplicity would hold that God is not complex in the way people like Richard Dawkins so clumsily state he is.
nagirrac wrote: » Just came across this thread so apologies if this ground has been covered. Just like in other walks of life I find dogmatic views on this subject insufferable and frankly lacking in intellect. The greatest minds in history have pondered this question and no one has an answer. I believe this question is a human paradox, there is no answer within our narrow frame of reference. We are severly limited by our narrow range of senses, and the easy way out is to say if we cannot percieve it then it cannot exist. The question that I find most interesting is "where did the laws of nature come from?" They were clearly there at the instant of the big bang as everything after the big bang followed these very specific laws. Man did not invent them, man has come to know them through centuries of careful study. Who knows what undiscovered laws remain to be uncovered as we continue our evolution. There is strong evidence that music is like mathematics and is already out there waiting to be uncovered like calculus. Mozart for example used to relax by having his wife read to him and after she finished he would transcribe whole finished pieces of music with no apparent effort of composing. Which begs the question, "where did such complex beautiful music come from"? I think we just have to accept we cannot even imagine the answer to the question of what lies behind the design of the universe. We should accept our limitations because there are many topics where we just cannot understand due to our mental limitations. A good example is time. In concept people accept Einstein's work without actually pondering its significance. In discussions about the big bang theory, one frequently hears the comment "but what came before the big bang". The answer of course is there was no "before" since time as we know it came into being at the instant of the big bang. Its hard to imagine a world without time but it must exist outside the constraints of our universe otherwise our universe could not exist.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a8a40f5256da0c5cecb625a58bc7796.svg)
