# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Torn between theism and atheism

## hbacharya

why should I be a beleiver ? Is there a god? I do not care whether there is god or ot. If there is one who created me, then he will take care of me. If he is reallly merciful he will he will guide me and save me from committing sins, and from going astray. If he is the one to have created everything and our minds he must be answerable for all we do. Good or bad. 

The point whether there is god or not does not interest me at all. I am not a strong beleiver. I am not a temple goer. Chrisianity, No it does not appeal to me. Christ does. His sermons on the mounts are really something that can save us from falling. So is the Buddha. 
I do no find them divine. They loved not out of divinity but of humanity. They are great humans.

I like Marx also. Marx was a materialist and did not beleive in God and religion was something he dispelled. So what whether he was a beleiver or not? But he lived for humanity selflessly till his last breathe tirelessly and unremittingly.
He lived for a cause that had to do with humanity. This humanist appealed to me immensely. Yet communism failed somewhere but not everywhere despite there incisive allegatios against communism by western medias. I do not always belleive in what the media say. At times medias become mouth peices of of despots. 

I am not a theist nor an atheist. In fact we have diverse ideas. If we are really honest we are not the same at all times. Sometimes we have a tinge of beleif and at others we have different views. In fact we have different views on different things. 

Sometimes when I read marx, Freud, Russel I become rationally and scientifically bent and athesim appeals to me and at others when I read the Buddha and Christ and Krishna I have a different feeling and I will be close to theism

Honesty is better than any other idelogy. I am like that and choose to share with you all that I feel.

----------


## Bii

I entirely agree, better to be honest about your feelings as opposed to pretending to believe in God, or believing out of fear of retribution in the afterlife if you don't. Most people will waiver one way or the other at one time, but I suppose in general you probably have a 'core' belief either theistic, or athiestic.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> I entirely agree, better to be honest about your feelings as opposed to pretending to believe in God, or believing out of fear of retribution in the afterlife if you don't.


Honestly, why not believe out of fear of retribution? I would rather live in fear than suffer forever. Not that this is an entirely healthy way of thinking, but I think it is better than the alternative.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I recommend atheism if commitment to religious belief isn't your thing, but only if you can defend your lack of said beliefs semi-vigorously. Otherwise, you have nothing to stand against when your atheism is besieged (and it will be). Point is, you need to find the belief system, theistic or otherwise, that fits best for you, and contentions to back it up.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I would rather live in fear than suffer forever. Not that this is an entirely healthy way of thinking, but I think it is better than the alternative.


The alternative being a healthy way of thinking?

Here's one: maybe there's a God, and maybe there isn't. If there is a God who would eternally torture a moral person for not believing him, it's not going to be possible to please him anyway. If there is a God who is not in the habbit of condemning moral people to hell, there isn't a problem.

In slightly more practical terms: it doesn't matter _what_ you belive in, so long as you're a moral person.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> The alternative being a healthy way of thinking?
> 
> Here's one: maybe there's a God, and maybe there isn't. If there is a God who would eternally torture a moral person for not believing him, it's not going to be possible to please him anyway. If there is a God who is not in the habbit of condemning moral people to hell, there isn't a problem.
> 
> In slightly more practical terms: it doesn't matter _what_ you belive in, so long as you're a moral person.


That would only be reasonable if you were perfect, which I doubt you are. If you are imperfect, then you need divine assistance. Divine assistance quite possibly has certain prerequisites including belief.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That would only be reasonable if you were perfect, which I doubt you are. If you are imperfect, then you need divine assistance. Divine assistance quite possibly has certain prerequisites including belief.


My way does not in any way require perfection. You just have to try to be moral, which is (in theory) what you would be doing anyway, were you a theist.

----------


## RobinHood3000

How many people are imperfect drivers? And how many of them die in automobile accidents?

----------


## Hyacinth42

Oh, you don't have to choose either of them, it's called agnosticism  :Wink:  Or at least, that's what I am... 

I believe that there is a God somewhere out there, but do not necessarily suscribe to any main-stream religion. So, I have come to my own conclusions as to the nature of things like creation, damnation, and what to do with yourself... 

So you don't get attacked for being an atheist, get the nice warm fuzzy feeling from knowing there is a higher entity, get out of hell for believing in God, and get to do it all seperately from and formal institution.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Oh, you don't have to choose either of them, it's called agnosticism  Or at least, that's what I am... 
> 
> I believe that there is a God somewhere out there, but do not necessarily suscribe to any main-stream religion. So, I have come to my own conclusions as to the nature of things like creation, damnation, and what to do with yourself... 
> 
> So you don't get attacked for being an atheist, get the nice warm fuzzy feeling from knowing there is a higher entity, get out of hell for believing in God, and get to do it all seperately from and formal institution.


Strictly speaking, you don't sound very much like an agnostic. Agnostics are in doubt as to whether or not gods exist, you seem to believe in God, but doubt whether organized religion has a very good handle on him. Some people use the term 'spiritualist' to describe a person who believes in god independantly of organized religion.

The opinions of anybody ignorant enough to 'attack' one for atheism are not worth considering, in my opinion.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Oh, I dunno about that. They're marvelous for helping one affirm one's lack of faith.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rick Hendricks

I have studied Marx, and find him not to be a materialist or concerned about humanity, but rather a dominating and controlling individual who allowed thee of his five children to die, while he waged war on progress. Communism invites totalitarians to seize control, as evidence by Chavez, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Lenin and others who ascended to power under this banner.

There is a third alternative to religion (which I believe is your true argument), Deism.

All the best,
Rick

----------


## aeroport

> The opinions of anybody ignorant enough to 'attack' one for atheism are not worth considering, in my opinion.


Agreed.
I was just wondering what this business was about being attacked over, of all things, atheism. I've never been able to understand why - in my own case, anyway - people seem to really think something is wrong with you when you say you're a nonbeliever (this would be my rather euphemistic way of describing my 'spiritual beliefs', more an _absence of belief_ in God than the _belief in the absence_ of God, as I'm no philosopher). Quite honestly, mean things have been said to me simply because I say I have never been convinced of the existence of God, or anything spiritual at all. I don't bloody get it! How can people seem so sure? Doesn't the idea of faith imply that one is unsure?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> How can people seem so sure?


"Certainty" can be a psychological state and not necessarily based on objective facts.

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> Agreed.
> I was just wondering what this business was about being attacked over, of all things, atheism. I've never been able to understand why - in my own case, anyway - people seem to really think something is wrong with you when you say you're a nonbeliever (this would be my rather euphemistic way of describing my 'spiritual beliefs', more an _absence of belief_ in God than the _belief in the absence_ of God, as I'm no philosopher). Quite honestly, mean things have been said to me simply because I say I have never been convinced of the existence of God, or anything spiritual at all. I don't bloody get it! How can people seem so sure? Doesn't the idea of faith imply that one is unsure?


Actually, "faith", I'm assuming, is not consider to be "unsure" to those who truly and strongly believes.

For those who have faith, it gives them more of an assurance than being unsure.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> why should I be a beleiver ? Is there a god? I do not care whether there is god or ot. If there is one who created me, then he will take care of me. If he is reallly merciful he will he will guide me and save me from committing sins, and from going astray. If he is the one to have created everything and our minds he must be answerable for all we do. Good or bad.


This is a god of your own creation, and as such, is unworthy of the title "God."




> The point whether there is god or not does not interest me at all. I am not a strong beleiver. I am not a temple goer. Chrisianity, No it does not appeal to me. Christ does. His sermons on the mounts are really something that can save us from falling. So is the Buddha. 
> I do no find them divine. They loved not out of divinity but of humanity. They are great humans.


Christ is quite different from Buddha because He claimed to be God - to say that He appeals to you but you don't care whether there is a God or not is absurd. Christ _is_ God - he said so numerous times. If Christ was not divine, His crucifixion was pointless, He was insane because He claimed to be God, and His entire mission on earth a waste of time. 




> Sometimes when I read marx, Freud, Russel I become rationally and scientifically bent and athesim appeals to me and at others when I read the Buddha and Christ and Krishna I have a different feeling and I will be close to theism
> 
> Honesty is better than any other idelogy. I am like that and choose to share with you all that I feel.


I'm glad you're willing to read good stuff - but honestly - the Gospels are more than just "moral philosophy."

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Christ is quite different from Buddha because He claimed to be God


And Buddha is quite different from Christ - because he said God(s) are no use to mankind because Nirvana is higher than the God(s).

----------


## hyperborean

> And Buddha is quite different from Christ - because he said God(s) are no use to mankind because Nirvana is higher than the God(s).


Which is why philosophers like Nietzsche favor Buddhism above all other religions.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And Buddha is quite different from Christ - because he said God(s) are no use to mankind because Nirvana is higher than the God(s).


Right - _different_, however, does not mean _equal_, unfortunately. They cannot be equals because Christ claimed _divine status_.

----------


## James Wallace

> why should I be a beleiver ? Is there a god? I do not care whether there is god or ot. If there is one who created me, then he will take care of me. If he is reallly merciful he will he will guide me and save me from committing sins, and from going astray.


What I can say, hbacharya, is that you should be a believer, i think you have to determine your state, theist or not. God is already existent and he is already taking care of you all the time; but you cannot just sit and say "He will guide me if He is there", No, he is there but He left you the choice to believe in Him or not and hence you take full responsibility of your choice.




> I like Marx also. Marx was a materialist and did not beleive in God and religion was something he dispelled. So what whether he was a beleiver or not? But he lived for humanity selflessly till his last breathe tirelessly and unremittingly.
> He lived for a cause that had to do with humanity. This humanist appealed to me immensely.


And as for humanity, religion's humanity that cannot, as I believe, be compensated by man-made laws is one of the things that make it worthy of being followed. Religion is human because it is inspired from God.
Marx, as you say, had humanity in what he called for, the idea of Marxism is noble, though the means were catastrophic.
Marx's and all social reformers' and thinkers' aims of justice, cooperation, freedom and equality is found in the faith I believe in, Islam.




> Sometimes when I read marx, Freud, Russel I become rationally and scientifically bent and athesim appeals to me and at others when I read the Buddha and Christ and Krishna I have a different feeling and I will be close to theism


When you Marx, Freud, Russel, it is expected that you like them, they are great thinkers, you know. But they are not entirely right, any thinker can be wrong at a time.
You said you read Buddha and Christ and felt comfortable with them, that is because religion is an original part of man's soul, keep on reading them, they are better, and may I suggest Qur'an (Muslim's hol book) too, I am sure you will find it real close to your heart and you will see it as the choice of a reasonable man.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Right - _different_, however, does not mean _equal_, unfortunately. They cannot be equals because Christ claimed _divine status_.


Xerexes also claimed Divine Status. But Buddha said "Nirvana" is Higher than any Divine Status...

----------


## Babbalanja

> Quite honestly, mean things have been said to me simply because I say I have never been convinced of the existence of God, or anything spiritual at all. I don't bloody get it! How can people seem so sure? Doesn't the idea of faith imply that one is unsure?


Good question. Faith is simply the believer's way of getting rid of the anxiety that defines the human condition. He substitutes false certainty for the troublesome doubt that plagues humanity. Then he accuses the rest of us of being immoral because we don't do the same.

----------


## aeroport

> "Certainty" can be a psychological state and not necessarily based on objective facts.


I can see what youre saying, but I think that is more a case of general word-misuse. "Certainty" means fixed, inevitable, settled, beyond question. People say that they are "certain" of things as more or less a figure of speech, it being rather difficult, in truth, to be certain of many things at all. (Personally, I opt for the "relatively certain" cop-out most of the time.  :Tongue:  )




> Actually, "faith", I'm assuming, is not consider to be "unsure" to those who truly and strongly believes.
> 
> For those who have faith, it gives them more of an assurance than being unsure.


But if, as you're suggesting, it is the uncertainty that necessitates (or renders preferable for many, anyway) the belief, can the belief itself not be said to be founded on uncertainty?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Xerexes also claimed Divine Status. But Buddha said "Nirvana" is Higher than any Divine Status...


True; but Christ put His money where His mouth was and _proved_ it. I'm not certain how the "perfect bliss attained by the extinction of individuality" (American Standard Dictionary) is "higher" than a Being that has the ability to create the universe and life itself _ex nihilo_.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> True; but Christ put His money where His mouth was and _proved_ it.


How?




> I'm not certain how the "perfect bliss attained by the extinction of individuality" (American Standard Dictionary) is "higher" than a Being that has the ability to create the universe and life itself _ex nihilo_.



Creation ex-nihilo is a logical impossibility. So you either reject logic and accept faith but you can't have both.




> I can see what youre saying, but I think that is more a case of general word-misuse. "Certainty" means fixed, inevitable, settled, beyond question. People say that they are "certain" of things as more or less a figure of speech, it being rather difficult, in truth, to be certain of many things at all. (Personally, I opt for the "relatively certain" cop-out most of the time.  )


I would say "certainty" is something that is verifiable. The psychological state of "certainty" can't. It is the subjective experience of the individual.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> How?


He performed miracles and rose from the dead.




> Creation ex-nihilo is a logical impossibility. So you either reject logic and accept faith but you can't have both.


Only illogical from the standpoint which insists that God doesn't exist. If He does (He does), and the description of Him is accurate (omniscient, omnipotent), then of course He can create out of nothing. "Logic" is a human construct - one given us by God Himself; if God doesn't appear logical to you, well perhaps you ought to reconsider just how much of reality you think human beings can accurately apprehend.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> He performed miracles and rose from the dead.


This is why asking the rhetorical "How?" is only asking for trouble. It may seem succinct, but it only hits the ball into the other court and wastes a valuable opportunity for rebuttal.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> This is why asking the rhetorical "How?" is only asking for trouble. It may seem succinct, but it only hits the ball into the other court and wastes a valuable opportunity for rebuttal.


How cynically inconstructive.
-Bill Watterson

----------


## lovemysweet5678

hey. i'm a Christian. i do believe there's a God. I admitt sometimes i beg to differ. sometimes i think that there isn't one. that if there was, why couldn't he make an appearance now? but, then again, if you think of it... there has to be. or SOMETHING out there. yes, there is the "Big Bang Theroy". but what does it really prove? it proves how the earth was creathed in which we stand on now. They say it was some kind of chemical reaction. I think of it this way, what created the chemical? the chemical has to be created in order for a chemical reaction to occur. also, what happens when we die? there are souls in side of us all right? well, where do we go after life? We can't stay on Earth. We'd have to go somewhere. I have my ups and downs, and sometimes doubt myself, but i still believe. i hope i either enthused some people, or something.  :Biggrin:  lol

----------


## RobinHood3000

Well, if you'd prefer I jump in:

As is probably obvious, I frankly don't believe in the Biblical doings of Jesus. Redzeppelin does. Not a whole lot that can be resolved in there.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> He performed miracles and rose from the dead.


And that is your "proof"?

If so why can't you accept other claims of miracles and rising from the dead in other scriptures?




> "Logic" is a human construct


So is the Idea of God. 




> one given us by God Himself; if God doesn't appear logical to you, well perhaps you ought to reconsider just how much of reality you think human beings can accurately apprehend.


No, my question is this: Creation Ex-nihilo is logical impossibility. You either reject logic and accept faith. But you can't have both.

----------


## aeroport

> I would say "certainty" is something that is verifiable. The psychological state of "certainty" can't. It is the subjective experience of the individual.


But this "psychological state" sounds to me like it has more to do with being _convinced_ than certain.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> This is why asking the rhetorical "How?" is only asking for trouble. It may seem succinct, but it only hits the ball into the other court and wastes a valuable opportunity for rebuttal.


Not exactly. The question was following from the word "proof" in the previous post. Claims of miracles is not a "proof" - it is just a belief.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And that is your "proof"?


No. That's _Christ's_ proof. Your insistence on "proof" in a discussion of religious figures is odd to say the least.




> If so why can't you accept other claims of miracles and rising from the dead in other scriptures?


Other scriptures aren't about the one true God; they're about imitators or pretenders. Sorry if that sounds harsh.





> So is the Idea of God.


Nope. God is not an "idea" - He is absolute reality. To relegate Him to the land of humanly-constructed fictions is a serious error.




> No, my question is this: Creation Ex-nihilo is logical impossibility. You either reject logic and accept faith. But you can't have both.


It's not an either/or, despite your attempts to make it so. Human logic placed next to the reality of God is like 3-year-old logic placed next to Einstein; what seems perfectly "logical" to the child is absolute silliness to the adult; so it is with our "logic" placed next to God.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Other scriptures aren't about the one true God; they're about imitators or pretenders. Sorry if that sounds harsh.


With due respects this is what your "proof" boils down to "mere belief". All proofs should be verifiable and we should only accept the verifiable proofs.




> Nope. God is not an "idea" - He is absolute reality. To relegate Him to the land of humanly-constructed fictions is a serious error.


It was the human intellect that came the Idea of God in the first place (recall Abraham).




> Human logic placed next to the reality of God is like 3-year-old logic placed next to Einstein;


Einestein once was a three year old. We all grow out of our childhood. 




> what seems perfectly "logical" to the child is absolute silliness to the adult; so it is with our "logic" placed next to God.


Even the child develops under logical laws...

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Your insistence on "proof" in a discussion of religious figures is odd to say the least.


Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You (or rather, the church) is asking quite a lot of us based on these miracles.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> With due respects this is what your "proof" boils down to "mere belief". All proofs should be verifiable and we should only accept the verifiable proofs.


OK Lote - we're probably near the end of our discussion because I've already made clear that I don't by Naturalism as the defining methodology for assessing reality.




> It was the human intellect that came the Idea of God in the first place (recall Abraham).


That's your opinion: unprovable and merely wishful speculation - one that carries no more weight than my assertion of God's reality.





> Einestein once was a three year old. We all grow out of our childhood.


Clever - but the difference is that our greatest human minds are still infantile compared to the all-encompassing mind of God.





> Even the child develops under logical laws...


You are free to continue to stand on the soapbox of "logic" - but logic cannot account for all that is contained within reality - so at some point, your foundation fails. Logic cannot account for all.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> You are free to continue to stand on the soapbox of "logic" - but logic cannot account for all that is contained within reality - so at some point, your foundation fails. Logic cannot account for all.


Logic accounts for a lot - the rest, coincidence!  :Thumbs Up:  

Okay, I know that was mean-spirited, and I don't mean that (at least not in so few words), but I needed to humor myself - sorry. But you have to at least try to understand the inherent frustration we atheists can feel when an argument goes like this:

"Prove that Jesus was the son of God."
"He performed miracles."
"Prove that he performed miracles."
"We couldn't possibly understand how, so we won't try, nyeh." (Okay, that was mean-spirited, too, but even Plato used scarecrows)
"Could you at least tell me why I can't not believe in God?"
"Your position doesn't have a firm basis. Mine does."
" :Brickwall: "

...again, I apologize if any of this is offensive, but I honestly don't mean any hard feelings. Your faith is remarkably firm, and I can appreciate that, but I'm not convinced you understand where we're coming from. Still, I have to agree with you, Red - an atheist insisting in proof in the existence of God is among the more absurd concepts in the history of religious debate.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> OK Lote - we're probably near the end of our discussion because I've already made clear that I don't by Naturalism as the defining methodology for assessing reality.


OK no problema Redzepplin. 

But you know that without objectivity we can't agree upon anything?
The whole foundation of science would fall apart if there was no objectivity.




> That's your opinion: unprovable and merely wishful speculation - one that carries no more weight than my assertion of God's reality.


Abraham came to his God by using his Intellect. Refer to scripture.




> Clever - but the difference is that our greatest human minds are still infantile compared to the all-encompassing mind of God.


This "infantile" mind so far have discovered some of the building blocks of the Universe - don't under-estimate the power of human intellect. 




> You are free to continue to stand on the soapbox of "logic" - but logic cannot account for all that is contained within reality - so at some point, your foundation fails. Logic cannot account for all.


The Whole Universe is Rational. If it was not then we would have hump-back wales popping up in vacuum of space and monkeys suddenly being able to write shakespeares sonnets.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> OK no problema Redzepplin. 
> 
> But you know that without objectivity we can't agree upon anything?
> The whole foundation of science would fall apart if there was no objectivity.


I'm not dismissing the existence of at least a mitigated level of objectivity; you and I can converse because we have a reasonably "objective" agreement as to what these words we're using mean. We both agree on some fundamental truths about existence - of that I'm certain. What I'm trying to propose is that scientific naturalism is no more objective than Christianity. That is all I'm suggesting. The fact that naturalism eliminates the spiritual component of the world is a limiting "filter" that alters naturalism's ablility to accurately assess the full and complete nature of reality.




> Abraham came to his God by using his Intellect. Refer to scripture.


Thanks - I've read it before. But what you said here is different than "Abraham created the idea of God." Lots of people come to God through their intellect, but that's different from saying we create God _via_ our intellect.




> This "infantile" mind so far have discovered some of the building blocks of the Universe - don't under-estimate the power of human intellect.


Yeah - we're pretty smart; that's why our inventions are destroying the earth. Either way, as magnificent as human intellect is, I'll be impressed when we can create the world, the universe and life from _nothing_. Now _that's_ a trick, eh?




> The Whole Universe is Rational. If it was not then we would have hump-back wales popping up in vacuum of space and monkeys suddenly being able to write shakespeares sonnets.


That the universe has laws points to the existence of a Designer who put those laws into place; what you speak of is not a lack of rationality but a violation of the universal laws. "Forces" cannot be "rational" - only a mind can be rational (hence God as the foundation for reality).




> Logic accounts for a lot - the rest, coincidence!  
> 
> Okay, I know that was mean-spirited, and I don't mean that (at least not in so few words), but I needed to humor myself - sorry. But you have to at least try to understand the inherent frustration we atheists can feel when an argument goes like this:
> 
> "Prove that Jesus was the son of God."
> "He performed miracles."
> "Prove that he performed miracles."
> "We couldn't possibly understand how, so we won't try, nyeh." (Okay, that was mean-spirited, too, but even Plato used scarecrows)
> "Could you at least tell me why I can't not believe in God?"
> ...


Robin - are you suggesting I've engaged in this? I hope not, because I'll be forced to disagree with you. I have never gotten (that I can recall) into any converstation about God/Christ ever using the word "proof." My conversation with Lote was how Christ distinguished his claim of divinity from other so-called "divine" figures. To engage in any dialogue like you've posted is silly for a Christian to get involved with because, more than likely, he'll ultimately wind up where you've suggested he would (a place I less than half like being). 

I'm not sure I've suggested my basis is _better_ - but I have definitely been repeating myself _ad nauseum_ that naturalism is not more objective than Christianity; I'm trying to get my opponents to admit this - that's all; not that I'm right, or that they're wrong - but that their position is fairly equal to mine in terms of objectivity.




> ...again, I apologize if any of this is offensive, but I honestly don't mean any hard feelings. Your faith is remarkably firm, and I can appreciate that, but I'm not convinced you understand where we're coming from. Still, I have to agree with you, Red - an atheist insisting in proof in the existence of God is among the more absurd concepts in the history of religious debate.


Then help me understand where you're coming from - because I so dislike having a conversation where my comments are based upon misunderstanding (an annoyingly common occurrence for me, unfortunately).

----------


## Lote-Tree

> What I'm trying to propose is that scientific naturalism is no more objective than Christianity.


Then we have to disagree. The scientific method relies on verification. Faith does not.




> The fact that naturalism eliminates the spiritual component of the world is a limiting "filter" that alters naturalism's ablility to accurately assess the full and complete nature of reality.


Nature of Reality is Objective. It is this Reality that we can agree upon. Rest is the subjective experiences of the individual. 




> Thanks - I've read it before. But what you said here is different than "Abraham created the idea of God."


You said logic is a human construct. And I said so is the Idea of God. Just like human discovered logic through Intellect, Abraham came to the Idea of his God through the Intellect. Thus if logic is a human construct so is the Idea of God. 




> Yeah - we're pretty smart; that's why our inventions are destroying the earth.


Our inventions can also save it, transform it. All we need is the will to do so. 




> Either way, as magnificent as human intellect is, I'll be impressed when we can create the world, the universe and life from _nothing_. Now _that's_ a trick, eh?


Creation Ex-Nihilo is logical impossiblity. Reject logic - and yes it is a Neat Trick. Something can't come out of nothing - even for a God. That is why Philosophers have come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Even Mystic reject Creation Ex-Nihilo.




> That the universe has laws points to the existence of a Designer who put those laws into place


Argument from Design have been done to death. It no longer bears any fruit. 




> what you speak of is not a lack of rationality but a violation of the universal laws. "Forces" cannot be "rational" - only a mind can be rational (hence God as the foundation for reality).


You said previously logic does not account for all that is contained within Reality. And I said whole Universe is Rational - ie illogical thing like whales popping up in vacuum space never occurs or monkeys suddenly writing shakespeare never happens. There is nothing Illogical about the Universe. The more we discover it more Rational it appears to us - even the bizzare world of Quantum World can be rationalised.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then we have to disagree. The scientific method relies on verification. Faith does not.


The scientific method relies on verification and interpretation (which cannot be completely subjective); the only way to take the subjectivity out of science is to remove the human beings because we cannot be completely objective; the evolutionist and the creationist can look at the same evidence and come up with radically different (but equally reasonable) interpretations of that evidence - so which one is right? 





> Nature of Reality is Objective. It is this Reality that we can agree upon. Rest is the subjective experiences of the individual.


Right - and since our experience is subjective, our interpretations will follow suit.




> You said logic is a human construct. And I said so is the Idea of God. Just like human discovered logic through Intellect, Abraham came to the Idea of his God through the Intellect. Thus if logic is a human construct so is the Idea of God.


No. Just because a human being can think a thought does not mean that they brought that idea into existence. The thought may exist because the thing thought of _exists_. Your comments about Abraham contradict the Bible - Abraham had a relationship with God; by your comments, Abraham was a lunatic who had conversations with himself and did things (like almost sacrifice his son) due to conversations with himself. That is not _logical_ at all. That is insanity.




> Our inventions can also save it, transform it. All we need is the will to do so.


That doesn't mean that we have an intellect that can equal God's.




> Creation Ex-Nihilo is logical impossiblity. Reject logic - and yes it is a Neat Trick. Something can't come out of nothing - even for a God. That is why Philosophers have come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Even Mystic reject Creation Ex-Nihilo.


_Ex nihilo_ creation is illogical if the laws of this world are capable of restricting the actions of God. They don't. He created them; as such, He may manipulate them at will. Your comments imply no real conception of God; rather, you set constraints around God that make Him nothing more than a "super-human." Philosophers and mytics reject _ex nihilo_ because they first rejected God. If God exists and is who He claims to be, _ex nihilo_ is not only possible, but _required_ in order that God be God - and that He be different and superior to all other versions of "God."




> Argument from Design have been done to death. It no longer bears any fruit.


So you say.




> You said previously logic does not account for all that is contained within Reality. And I said whole Universe is Rational - ie illogical thing like whales popping up in vacuum space never occurs or monkeys suddenly writing shakespeare never happens. There is nothing Illogical about the Universe. The more we discover it more Rational it appears to us - even the bizzare world of Quantum World can be rationalised.


Whales popping up in the vacuum of space has nothing to do with "rationality" - it has to do with physical laws and the limitations of physical reality. The idea about the "rationality" of the universe means it makes sense (i.e. is "rational") to us in terms of how we _understand_ it. It's behavior is not rational - our _understanding_ of it _defines_ it as rational. You're not using language very precisely here.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> The scientific method relies on verification and interpretation (which cannot be completely subjective)


I think perhaps you have not understood the Scientific Method - it relies on verification - this is how the subjectivity is removed. Without it science will fall apart. If scientific method involves subjectivity then we would not have computers and cyberspace and will not been able to chat over the internet :-) 




> No. Just because a human being can think a thought does not mean that they brought that idea into existence.


Erm..Yes. They do. Our thoughts brings Ideas into existence.




> Your comments about Abraham contradict the Bible


Abraham came to the Idea of his God by rational thought. He started with Sun and the moon - then came to the Idea of His God... 




> Abraham had a relationship with God


Yes, after coming to the Idea of his God. Then he decided to worship this God alone.




> ; by your comments, Abraham was a lunatic who had conversations with himself and did things (like almost sacrifice his son) due to conversations with himself. That is not _logical_ at all. That is insanity.


We all have conversations with ourselves. So did Newton, Einsteins etc. 




> That doesn't mean that we have an intellect that can equal God's.


We can always make comparisons with hypothetical beings like this. Even now we can't compete with IBM's DeepBlue chess playing computer. But we built it.




> _Ex nihilo_ creation is illogical if the laws of this world are capable of restricting the actions of God. They don't. He created them; as such, He may manipulate them at will.


Something does not come out of nothing - even for a God! Philosophers and Mystics came to this conclusion a long time ago. And now even science is showing that something does not come out of nothing - ie Energy is neither created or destroyed.




> Your comments imply no real conception of God


There are many conceptions of God. Only Abrahamic Religions are stuck with Creation Ex-Nihilo - I believe it was the Nicea Decree that made Creation Ex-Nihilo an official Christian Doctrine. Though a careful reading of the scripture can show that even Abrahamic Religions don't really support such notions. 




> Philosophers and mytics reject _ex nihilo_ because they first rejected God.


Incorrect. The Islamic Falsafa's were devout men. Aristotle accepted Prime Mover. And Mystics never rejected God - they believed in God so much that they decided to find him in their souls.




> If God exists and is who He claims to be, _ex nihilo_ is not only possible, but _required_ in order that God be God - and that He be different and superior to all other versions of "God."


If there is a God then he must be a logical entity. The "creation" reveals that this God to be a logical entity. Therefore Something does not come out of nothing - even for a God. Hence Philosophers and Mystics - reject Creation Ex-Nihilo.




> Whales popping up in the vacuum of space has nothing to do with "rationality" - it has to do with physical laws and the limitations of physical reality.


You said logic does not account for all existence. And I am saying if it does not then we would have seen Whales popping up vacuum of space or other irrational things happening all the time. 




> The idea about the "rationality" of the universe means it makes sense


And it does. There is nothing there in the Universe that does not make sense. Hence Whole Universe is rational.




> It's behavior is not rational - our understanding of it defines it as rational.


It's behaviour is rational and hence we understand it as rational. If it was irrational then we would say it is irrational.

----------


## [email protected]

What you are asking yourself is... What is out there... Outside the universe outside all of what we believe and don't believe. What is outside the circle of death and life, Yin and Yang. 
What was before "Big Bang" and what was the thing that created the thing that created "Big Bang" (that is to say if there was one).
Congratulation, you are beginning to think for yourself and do not want to believe blindly in what has been handed over to you by religion or science.
Don't stop now!!!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I think perhaps you have not understood the Scientific Method - it relies on verification - this is how the subjectivity is removed. Without it science will fall apart. If scientific method involves subjectivity then we would not have computers and cyberspace and will not been able to chat over the internet :-)


Verification is good and fine and necessary, yes. But reality consists of more than that which can be empirically verified.




> Erm..Yes. They do. Our thoughts brings Ideas into existence.


But if that idea represents an actual entity, then no, you didn't bring that entity into existence in reality. People have the idea of God because He exists. 





> Abraham came to the Idea of his God by rational thought. He started with Sun and the moon - then came to the Idea of His God... 
> 
> Yes, after coming to the Idea of his God. Then he decided to worship this God alone.
> 
> We all have conversations with ourselves. So did Newton, Einsteins etc.


You are grasping at straws. A close (heck, even a quick) reading of the account will reveal a much more personal relationship than an internal conversation. To worship that which comes out of your own head is insanity. Your comments are _illogical_ based upon the account of the Bible.





> We can always make comparisons with hypothetical beings like this. Even now we can't compete with IBM's DeepBlue chess playing computer. But we built it.


Deep Blue's mathematical/calculating/strategy capabilities are impressive; but the ability to win a chess game is not the same as understanding reality and abstract thought.




> Something does not come out of nothing - even for a God! Philosophers and Mystics came to this conclusion a long time ago. And now even science is showing that something does not come out of nothing - ie Energy is neither created or destroyed.


According to the Bible, God created out of nothing. Period. I do not care what the so-called philosophers and mystics say - the Bible says differently. Science's failure does not imply a similar limit upon God. 




> There are many conceptions of God. Only Abrahamic Religions are stuck with Creation Ex-Nihilo - I believe it was the Nicea Decree that made Creation Ex-Nihilo an official Christian Doctrine. Though a careful reading of the scripture can show that even Abrahamic Religions don't really support such notions.


Prove it.




> Incorrect. The Islamic Falsafa's were devout men. Aristotle accepted Prime Mover. And Mystics never rejected God - they believed in God so much that they decided to find him in their souls.


The God of the Bible created _ex nihilo_. If you reject that you have to reject the God portrayed in the scriptures.





> If there is a God then he must be a logical entity. The "creation" reveals that this God to be a logical entity. Therefore Something does not come out of nothing - even for a God. Hence Philosophers and Mystics - reject Creation Ex-Nihilo.


God's logic may be very different from ours.




> You said logic does not account for all existence. And I am saying if it does not then we would have seen Whales popping up vacuum of space or other irrational things happening all the time.


You've said this three times and its no more sensible this time than the last two.




> And it does. There is nothing there in the Universe that does not make sense. Hence Whole Universe is rational.


We _understand_ it to be rational - but rationality implies a mind; the universe does not have a mind.





> It's behaviour is rational and hence we understand it as rational. If it was irrational then we would say it is irrational.


The judgment of "rational" or "irrational" is based upon our ideas of what "rationality" and "irrationality" mean. To another being with a different idea of "rationality" our universe might appear frightfully chaotic and "irrational."

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Verification is good and fine and necessary, yes. But reality consists of more than that which can be empirically verified.


We accept only that which can be verified. And we will in the future verifiy more of the things that we are unable to verify currently. Science is a accumulative process. 




> But if that idea represents an actual entity, then no, you didn't bring that entity into existence in reality.


Our thoughts bring Ideas into Existence - Ideas that did not exist before. We can bring some of these Ideas into material form. For example - computers, aircraft, rockets, cars etc. 




> People have the idea of God because He exists.


Incorrect. People came to the Idea of God - and then they believed he must exist.




> You are grasping at straws. A close (heck, even a quick) reading of the account will reveal a much more personal relationship than an internal conversation.


I am not clutching at anything. I am going off what the Bible recorded. Abraham came to his God using his intellect. He REASONED that Sun must be God but sun went down at night so he REASONED it can't be God etc...




> Your comments are _illogical_ based upon the account of the Bible.


Burning bush, sea parting, angels - these are NOT logical things. So as I said before you either leave logic aside and accept faith alone. But you can't have both.




> Deep Blue's mathematical/calculating/strategy capabilities are impressive; but the ability to win a chess game is not the same as understanding reality and abstract thought.


Our Neural Networks already can think like a 2 year old so don't be so sure :-)




> According to the Bible, God created out of nothing. Period. I do not care what the so-called philosophers and mystics say - the Bible says differently.


:-) As I said before. You either reject logic and accept Faith alone. But you can't have both.




> Science's failure does not imply a similar limit upon God.


Science has not failed. Science has been a SPECTACULAR SUCESS in all branches of human knowledge. It has banished superstitions to the pages of Myths that they belong to.





> Prove it.


Here is a excerpt from Wiki:




> *Creatin Ex-Nihilo*
> 
> It has been argued that this concept cannot be deduced from the Hebrew and that the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, speaks of God "making" or "fashioning" the universe. However, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812) disputed these arguments in section II of his book titled "Tanya".
> 
> Thomas Jay Oord argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson, who acknowledge that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not present in the first book of the canon. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well.
> 
> Early Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and, later, John Scotus Erigena also found no good reason to affirm the creation-out-of-nothing hypothesis. Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.
> 
> For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of Creation out of Nothing in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).
> ...


For a more scholary account try - Karen Armstrong's *"A History of God"* and you can corroborate this with others aswell...




> The God of the Bible created _ex nihilo_. If you reject that you have to reject the God portrayed in the scriptures.


Mystics and Philosophers have long come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Science is also showing Something does not come out of Nothing. Mystics embody the heart of any religion. They grasp the Scripture on a deeper level than the ordinary believers. Thus the Christian Mystics, The Sufis of Islam, the Kabalists of Judaism - all reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. And if Science and Mystics are saying the same thing?




> God's logic may be very different from ours.


Even for a God 2+2 must equal 4?




> You've said this three times and its no more sensible this time than the last two.


Then perhaps you are not grasping the implication when you say logic does not account for all reality.




> We _understand_ it to be rational - but rationality implies a mind; the universe does not have a mind.


Universe was rational before the human beings came onto the scene and understood the concept rational. 




> The judgment of "rational" or "irrational" is based upon our ideas of what "rationality" and "irrationality" mean. To another being with a different idea of "rationality" our universe might appear frightfully chaotic and "irrational."


Incorrect. Even for another being 2+2 must equal 4.

----------


## hyperborean

No matter what you throw at Zeppelin he will find a way to spin things. It's not worth arguing. You can't bring up things like reality or science in front of a creationist. It's God this and God that....end of story you're wrong...God is almighty...you can't live without God. But then again if you step in Red's shoes you'll see people posting "science this, science that, God is imaginary".

It's a never ending wheel.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We accept only that which can be verified. And we will in the future verifiy more of the things that we are unable to verify currently. Science is a accumulative process.


Yep.




> Our thoughts bring Ideas into Existence - Ideas that did not exist before. We can bring some of these Ideas into material form. For example - computers, aircraft, rockets, cars etc.


I'm aware of all this. Either you _don't_ get the subtlety of the distinction I'm making or you _won't_. Which is it?




> Incorrect. People came to the Idea of God - and then they believed he must exist.


Here we go again: for the 3rd or 4th time: _no_: God created us with an awareness of His existence within our hearts. The _idea_ of God does not precede the _reality_ of God. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You and I disagree on this. Repeating yourself again and again doesn't make your point more valid. It just makes it redundant.




> I am not clutching at anything. I am going off what the Bible recorded. Abraham came to his God using his intellect. He REASONED that Sun must be God but sun went down at night so he REASONED it can't be God etc...


Care to cite the chapter in Genesis that shows this process for me?




> Burning bush, sea parting, angels - these are NOT logical things. So as I said before you either leave logic aside and accept faith alone. But you can't have both.


To someone ignorant of the power of God, they certainly are. Just like to a child, the physics of a black hole are fully incomprehensible.




> :-) As I said before. You either reject logic and accept Faith alone. But you can't have both.


There must be an echo in here.




> Science has not failed. Science has been a SPECTACULAR SUCESS in all branches of human knowledge. It has banished superstitions to the pages of Myths that they belong to.


And created neat _new_  fictions too (cf. "evolution" and "abiogenesis").




> Here is a excerpt from Wiki:
> 
> Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well.


At minimum, this weak argument still supports my position because God created the chaotic elements (what do you suppose He created _those_ out of?).




> Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.


Philo can postulate away; but to accept this means that God is not who He says He is in the Bible; only an uncreated Being can be God; the existence of pre-existent matter implies that something created it - who?




> For a more scholary account try - Karen Armstrong's *"A History of God"* and you can corroborate this with others aswell...


The rest of the article offered speculations and claims, but no really convincing arguments. Matter _cannot_ be eternal - it is created, and only God is capable of doing so. _Logically_ - there is no other answer because matter cannot create itself.





> Mystics and Philosophers have long come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Science is also showing Something does not come out of Nothing. Mystics embody the heart of any religion. They grasp the Scripture on a deeper level than the ordinary believers. Thus the Christian Mystics, The Sufis of Islam, the Kabalists of Judaism - all reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. And if Science and Mystics are saying the same thing?


This is all fine. The Bible describes who God is - and the only way God can be God is that He creates EVERYTHING.




> Even for a God 2+2 must equal 4?


Because the logic of mathematics is a reflection of God's character. God isn't confined by math - math is a representation of His logical, perfect character.




> Then perhaps you are not grasping the implication when you say logic does not account for all reality.


Not _our_ understanding of reality. Logic explains a good deal of reality; but, since we are temporal, carnal beings with spiritual components, we end up realizing that there are things about being human and about living here on earth that defy logic. Love is capable of defying the logical.




> Universe was rational before the human beings came onto the scene and understood the concept rational.


I'm done with this point because you seem incapable of understanding how the world "rational" applies to the universe. 




> Incorrect. Even for another being 2+2 must equal 4.


Only because 2+2=4 is a reflection of God's character.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Originally Posted by Lote-Tree 
> We accept only that which can be verified. And we will in the future verifiy more of the things that we are unable to verify currently. Science is a accumulative process.





> Yep.


Now you know what Science IS. It is based on verification. Faith on the other hand sadly not.




> Originally Posted by Lote-Tree 
> Our thoughts bring Ideas into Existence - Ideas that did not exist before. We can bring some of these Ideas into material form. For example - computers, aircraft, rockets, cars etc.





> I'm aware of all this. Either you don't get the subtlety of the distinction I'm making or you won't. Which is it?


I think you are not understanding what you are saying. You said something must exist before we have the idea of it i.e God must exist therefore we have the idea of God. But computers never existed before. These things did not have a prior existence - we brought these things into existence.




> Here we go again: for the 3rd or 4th time: no: God created us with an awareness of His existence within our hearts.


No. That is your belief. And I will respect that. 




> I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You and I disagree on this. Repeating yourself again and again doesn't make your point more valid.


The point is valid. But you don't have to accept it.




> Originally Posted by Lote-Tree 
> I am not clutching at anything. I am going off what the Bible recorded. Abraham came to his God using his intellect. He REASONED that Sun must be God but sun went down at night so he REASONED it can't be God etc...





> Care to cite the chapter in Genesis that shows this process for me?


Here:



> 19. Christianity. Bible, John 1.18
> 
> When Abraham saw the sun issuing in the morning from the east, he was first moved to think that that was God, and said, "This is the King that created me," and worshipped it the whole day. In the evening when the sun went down and the moon commenced to shine, he said, "Verily this rules over the orb which I worshipped the whole day, since the latter is darkened before it and does not shine any more." So he served the moon all that night. In the morning when he saw the darkness depart and the east grow light, he said, "Of a surety there is a King who rules over all these orbs and orders them."





> To someone ignorant of the power of God, they certainly are. Just like to a child, the physics of a black hole are fully incomprehensible.


But we grow out childhood don't we? Citing example of a child will not help you here. 




> Originally Posted by Lote-Tree 
> :-) As I said before. You either reject logic and accept Faith alone. But you can't have both.





> There must be an echo in here.


OK, the point taken. Let's move on.




> Originally Posted by Lote-Tree 
> Science has not failed. Science has been a SPECTACULAR SUCESS in all branches of human knowledge. It has banished superstitions to the pages of Myths that they belong to.





> And created neat new fictions too (cf. "evolution" and "abiogenesis").


As you agreed previously - science relies on verification. Without it science will fall apart. Whatever "fictions" you believe science has created - it will have to pass the test of verification over and over again. 

Evolution is a fact. Research in abiogenesis is at its early days yet. Just like Research in Higher Dimensions and Branes are at early stage yet. If you want to talk about these things we can do it on a separate thread. 




> Matter cannot be eternal - it is created, and only God is capable of doing so.


But you know that Matter is neither created or destroyed - it is one of the tenets of science? Hence matter is eternal? 




> Logically - there is no other answer because matter cannot create itself.


Belief in a God is not logical.




> Originally Postied by Lote-Tree 
> Mystics and Philosophers have long come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Science is also showing Something does not come out of Nothing. Mystics embody the heart of any religion. They grasp the Scripture on a deeper level than the ordinary believers. Thus the Christian Mystics, The Sufis of Islam, the Kabalists of Judaism - all reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. And if Science and Mystics are saying the same thing?





> This is all fine.


Ah I see. Previously you said you did not care ;-)




> The Bible describes who God is - and the only way God can be God is that He creates EVERYTHING.


Yes. But not Creation Ex-Nihilo. That is my point and Mystics and Philosophers and even science agrees with this.




> Because the logic of mathematics is a reflection of God's character. God isn't confined by math - math is a representation of His logical, perfect character.


Erm...you mean he can make 2+2=5?




> Not our understanding of reality. Logic explains a good deal of reality


It explains all of objective reality. And it is this reality that we can agree on. The rest is just the subjective experiences of the individual. 




> but, since we are temporal, carnal beings with spiritual components, we end up realizing that there are things about being human and about living here on earth that defy logic.


Objective Reality can't defy logic. Love is always a subjective experience of the individual. 




> I'm done with this point because you seem incapable of understanding how the world "rational" applies to the universe.


Rational implies that 2+2=4? 




> Only because 2+2=4 is a reflection of God's character.


And hence Creation Ex-Nihilo is impossible ;-)

Regards,
Lote.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Robin - are you suggesting I've engaged in this? I hope not, because I'll be forced to disagree with you. I have never gotten (that I can recall) into any converstation about God/Christ ever using the word "proof." My conversation with Lote was how Christ distinguished his claim of divinity from other so-called "divine" figures. To engage in any dialogue like you've posted is silly for a Christian to get involved with because, more than likely, he'll ultimately wind up where you've suggested he would (a place I less than half like being).


Not really YOU, so much as a straw-man construct of a theist and his argument. But I do think you give Christianity a great deal of credit, for which I can't really criticise you, but which rubs me in a funny way - not wrong, just funny.




> I'm not sure I've suggested my basis is _better_ - but I have definitely been repeating myself _ad nauseum_ that naturalism is not more objective than Christianity; I'm trying to get my opponents to admit this - that's all; not that I'm right, or that they're wrong - but that their position is fairly equal to mine in terms of objectivity.


You're right, in that absolute objectivity does not exist. But I do view logic as more rigorous as theistic belief.




> Then help me understand where you're coming from - because I so dislike having a conversation where my comments are based upon misunderstanding (an annoyingly common occurrence for me, unfortunately).


I think that that last statement of mine pretty much sums up where I'm coming from, although I doubt you'll buy into it as heavily as I do. I feel that all things supernatural or seemingly-supernatural must almost certainly have a logical explanation, because if they didn't, that would imply a higher power, and for a higher power to manifest itself irrevocably would decimate free will, defeat the purpose of faith, render all forms of science null, et cetera - all of which would be so radical (I daresay cataclysmic) to human functionality that there would be no point in having a soul, anyway.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Now you know what Science IS. It is based on verification. Faith on the other hand sadly not.


I have always known what science is. Do you know what faith means? Faith cannot be based upon "verification" because verification _negates_ the need for faith. 





> I think you are not understanding what you are saying. You said something must exist before we have the idea of it i.e God must exist therefore we have the idea of God. But computers never existed before. These things did not have a prior existence - we brought these things into existence.


No - I'm quite clear on what I'm saying. I did not indicate that the object must _proceed_ the idea of that object. I said that the idea does not _establish_ the reality of the object. That we can conceptualize God points IMO to the fact that He created us and implanted a "God consciousness" within us. That is all I was suggesting. You're free to keep repeating the contrary.





> No. That is your belief. And I will respect that. 
> 
> The point is valid. But you don't have to accept it.


Thank you.
No.
OK.





> Here:
> 
> 19. Christianity. Bible, John 1.18
> 
> When Abraham saw the sun issuing in the morning from the east, he was first moved to think that that was God, and said, "This is the King that created me," and worshipped it the whole day. In the evening when the sun went down and the moon commenced to shine, he said, "Verily this rules over the orb which I worshipped the whole day, since the latter is darkened before it and does not shine any more." So he served the moon all that night. In the morning when he saw the darkness depart and the east grow light, he said, "Of a surety there is a King who rules over all these orbs and orders them."


And what Bible did this quotation come out of? Here's what John 1:18 actually says: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."




> But we grow out childhood don't we? Citing example of a child will not help you here.


You miss the point entirely. I am beginning to wonder if you are able to do the abstract thinking that analogy requires.




> As you agreed previously - science relies on verification. Without it science will fall apart. Whatever "fictions" you believe science has created - it will have to pass the test of verification over and over again.


That is correct.




> Evolution is a fact. Research in abiogenesis is at its early days yet. Just like Research in Higher Dimensions and Branes are at early stage yet. If you want to talk about these things we can do it on a separate thread.


That is incorrect. Here you violated your own repeated assertions of logic and verification. The theory of evolution & abiogenesis violates both in terms of probability and logic.




> But you know that Matter is neither created or destroyed - it is one of the tenets of science? Hence matter is eternal?


Matter is not self existent: it did not and it cannot, create _itself_.




> Belief in a God is not logical.


The fact that He created your mind and its logical ability makes this statement of yours beyond silly IMO.




> Yes. But not Creation Ex-Nihilo. That is my point and Mystics and Philosophers and even science agrees with this.


Would you mind laying off the "mystics and philosophers"? They carry no authority with me, and you've said this 4-5x as if I can't hear you. I've heard this and I disagree with it. Where did you get the idea that repeating the same information over and over was effective in a discussion? It generally functions more as an annoyance.





> Erm...you mean he can make 2+2=5?


THat's not what I said. I said the logic of 2+2=4 represents the logic of God. God isn't confined by the equation because the equation is representative of His perfect logic. To say God could make 2+2=5 is to say that logic and mathematics have no relationship to Him; to say that God is confined to 2+2=4 is to make them "higher" than God; neither is correct: 2+2=4 _because_ God is who He is.




> It explains all of objective reality. And it is this reality that we can agree on. The rest is just the subjective experiences of the individual.


It cannot account for all of reality, and all of reality must include human experience and interaction with "objective reality."





> Objective Reality can't defy logic. Love is always a subjective experience of the individual.


Logic eventually breaks down. If it cannot account for human experience, behavior and attitude, then it is of only limited effectiveness in helping us understand human beings.




> Rational implies that 2+2=4?


I told you I was done with this point because you don't understand the language and its usage.




> And hence Creation Ex-Nihilo is impossible ;-)


Your language implies you've proved something; you've not. I'm through arguing this point because you simply keep repeating yourself. Matter did not always exist; that is an impossibility. Someone had to create it. I suggest God did. It's clear you disagree, and that's fine with me. But I cannot continue this fruitless discussion where you simply say the same thing again and again and again. If you refined your argument, or developed it in some way so our conversation could proceed, I'd happily plug away. But it's pretty clear that that's not going to happen in this conversation.

Thanks and good luck.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I have always known what science is. Do you know what faith means?


Yes. Here it is:

1. Belief is an assent to a set of unverifiable propositions.
2. FAITH is placing your trust in them.




> Faith cannot be based upon "verification" because verification _negates_ the need for faith.


Hence you might as well as believe in anything including the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it. Do you get this?




> I said that the idea does not _establish_ the reality of the object.


And I am saying Thoughts brings Ideas into Existence - Ideas like God.




> You miss the point entirely. I am beginning to wonder if you are able to do the abstract thinking that analogy requires.


Your analogy is incorrect. How many times do you have to repeat it? If you use this analogy - I can use the same analogy to say that we are like babies to God and hence belief and non-belief and Eternal Damanation for babies would be bonkers. 




> Here you violated your own repeated assertions of logic and verification. The theory of evolution & abiogenesis violates both in terms of probability and logic.


I said this Evolution is a FACT. Abiogenesis is currently being researched into.




> Evolution - Theory in a nutshell -Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:
> 
> 1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. 
> 
> 2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. 
> 
> 3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time. 
> 
> 5. An implicit struggle for survival ensues. 
> ...


Which bit is False?




> Matter is not self existent: it did not and it cannot, create _itself_.


So what does Matter neither created or destroyed means?




> Would you mind laying off the "mystics and philosophers"?


Why? They have a deeper understanding of the scripture. Perhaps you need to develop a better understanding of scripture too? 

As for philosophers - if you reject logical arguments - why are you here?
FAITH requires no verification - so why this pointless posts here?




> To say God could make 2+2=5 is to say that logic and mathematics have no relationship to Him; to say that God is confined to 2+2=4 is to make them "higher" than God; neither is correct: 2+2=4 _because_ God is who He is.


LOL :-) There you have it. You can't have both. FAITH or LOGIC - you need to make a choice. 




> It cannot account for all of reality, and all of reality must include human experience and interaction with "objective reality."


Our interaction with Gravity does not change Laws of Gravity LOL :-)




> Matter did not always exist; that is an impossibility.


Erm how do you know this? (don't say bible says so).




> But I cannot continue this fruitless discussion where you simply say the same thing again and again and again.


Because my arguments is the same which you have no counter arguments. You try many ways but my argument remains the same because 2+2=4. 




> If you refined your argument, or developed it in some way so our conversation could proceed, oI'd happily plug away. But it's pretty clear that that's not going to happen in this conversation.


It has not been fruitless. I have shown that 2+2=4 even for a God.




> Thanks and good luck.


Go in peace.

Shalom, Salam, Shantih and Peace.
Regards,
Lote

----------


## Adras

The way I see it most simply put is this. If I am wrong(Christian) big deal. I become Earth and I cease to exist. If Anyone else is wrong. Well, you are screwed. Not because God is cruel and is making you suffer but because you refused to accept him and he gave us free will to make our own choices. He laid them out before us. Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you. For no reason. Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me? No, didn't think so. Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of? No, didn't think so. Logically, explain Love. If you can do all this and still believe that Faith cannot exist in Logic. Well, then my friend you are un helpable and the only person that can help you is yourself.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The way I see it most simply put is this. If I am wrong(Christian) big deal. I become Earth and I cease to exist. If Anyone else is wrong. Well, you are screwed. Not because God is cruel and is making you suffer but because you refused to accept him and he gave us free will to make our own choices. He laid them out before us. Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you. For no reason.


What if you've got the wrong religion? There have been thousands of religions aside from Christianity, you know. What if the Aztecs were right? Come to think of it, what if you've got the wrong _sect_? Some Christians think that acceptance of Christ as your personal savior is enough to get you into heaven, some think that good works are required, some think something else. If you pick the wrong one, you wind up in hell. I hope you've chosen your religion carefully.




> Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me? No, didn't think so.


The universe is very big.




> Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of? No, didn't think so.


I believe you're thinking of Hawking. And no, but I'm sure he could.




> Logically, explain Love.


Sound Darwinian reasons.




> If you can do all this and still believe that Faith cannot exist in Logic. Well, then my friend you are un helpable and the only person that can help you is yourself.


I don't understand this bit at all. The size of the universe and Einsteinian physics are hard to understand, therefore faith is logical?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you. For no reason.


Anyone can believe in a benenovolent God. But benonovlent God and Eternal damnation? That is hard to accept. Eternal Damnation for finite life? That is unjust. Eternal Damnation mere unbelief in a God? Thats unjust. 




> Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me?


Visible Universe is about 14.7 billion years old. But it could be even mind-blowingly bigger.




> Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of?


Yes. They are like normal dimensions but may be very small and curled up. Also we can render 60 dimensional cube on to 2 dimensional surfaces :-)




> Logically, explain Love.


Oxytocin in the brain?




> Faith cannot exist in Logic.


1. Belief is an assent to unverifiable propositions.
2. Faith is placing your trust in them.

Thus either FAITH or LOGIC you can't have both.

----------


## aeroport

> The way I see it most simply put is this. If I am wrong(Christian) big deal. I become Earth and I cease to exist. If Anyone else is wrong. Well, you are screwed. Not because God is cruel and is making you suffer but because you refused to accept him and he gave us free will to make our own choices. He laid them out before us. Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you.


It would be one thing, I should think, to insist on not believing in God even in the face of irrefutable proof of its existence, out of pure stubbornness (or even, one might say, a propensity for and love of "sin") - which would validate all kinds of things in the Bible that the logical thinker at present considers nonsense, and could indeed give weight to your "deny-and-burn-in-hell" argument - but I'm afraid it is something else entirely, something really quite reasonable, to require more evidence than an anonymous text (which makes no pretense as it is of corresponding in any particular way with reality) to convince one of the existence of this being. If you are believing in God simply out of a fear of eternal punishment for doing otherwise, would it not immediately know, being omniscient and all, that this was the case - that there's no real faith there but simply fear? Allow me to drag this discussion down to the realm of the finite momentarily to illustrate this. It's a somewhat imperfect, and decidedly unwieldy, analogy (as I say, it is a difficult comparison when the subject claims to exist beyond reality), but the same principle applies:
Say you've threatened me thus: "If by such-and-such time," say you [this "time" representing the inevitable death], "you have not convinced yourself - if you do not positively _know_ beyond the vaguest shred of doubt - that I am Superman, then I will kidnap you and lower you into this boiling vat of water and remove you occasionally only to keep you from dying - so as to do it again, repeatedly, forever." Now, this is quite a fix, isn't it? In a way I would _know_ that the whole affair was utter nonsense: obviously Superman does not exist, which would preclude in relatively short order any reasonable conviction on my part that you were he. But would I say that while hovering above the steaming vat? Well, maybe yes, maybe no. The real question here, though, is, Do you believe me if I say yes? Not likely. You would know that I know Superman does not exist - and that I thus could not possibly convince myself that you were he - and would probably have some idea of what I thought of this whole sick arrangement. It seems to me even more unreasonable to suspect that God believes anyone's claim that they actually _love_ and "accept" it (i.e. "Him") under such a threat.




> Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me? No, didn't think so. Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of? No, didn't think so.


Well, it seems to be pretty well agreed-upon that the universe never really ends. But what if it does? We don’t really know. It might. We’ll figure it out eventually. That we haven’t yet is owing to the fact that we haven’t cut the measuring stick long enough, not necessarily because it is fundamentally impossible. 
You seem to be discounting the fact somehow that Einstein was, in fact, a human being. He was. And the fact that he speaks of these things is proof that they can be comprehended by a human.




> If you can do all this and still believe that Faith cannot exist in Logic. Well, then my friend you are un helpable and the only person that can help you is yourself.


So, to paraphrase, "If you're right, you cannot be helped"?

"un helpable"? But I can help myself?
…

I believe I’ve referred elsewhere to this judgment of the unconvinced on the part of believers… I’m not sure where it comes from – of course I’ve my opinion (the arrogant assertion of which you’ll notice I am with great civility forgoing) – and I am afraid I fail to see how it contributes to the discussion.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> It would be one thing, I should think, to insist on not believing in God even in the face of irrefutable proof of its existence, out of pure stubbornness (or even, one might say, a propensity for and love of "sin") - which would validate all kinds of things in the Bible that the logical thinker at present considers nonsense, and could indeed give weight to your "deny-and-burn-in-hell" argument - but I'm afraid it is something else entirely, something really quite reasonable, to require more evidence than an anonymous text (which makes no pretense as it is of corresponding in any particular way with reality) to convince one of the existence of this being.


Jamesian: master of the subordinate clause.

----------


## aeroport

> Jamesian: master of the subordinate clause.


 :FRlol:

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I believe Ive referred elsewhere to this judgment of the unconvinced on the part of believers Im not sure where it comes from  of course Ive my opinion (the arrogant assertion of which youll notice I am with great civility forgoing)  and I am afraid I fail to see how it contributes to the discussion.


I think that it is a result of general human nature - callousness, arrogance, etc. I will be attending a very liberal university soon, and have spent much time on its campus; I can testify that I've been equally maligned and denigrated for my beliefs. I don't worry about it, though, and won't complain (this isn't criticism towards you). Knowing the arguments and reflecting on the whole bit is part of the process - at least when I am attacked, though, I get attacked with generally meritorious (at least in my estimation) atheist thought.

Your experience is your experience, Jamesian, and I've not doubt that you've been thoughtlessly treated this way by believers in the past, and will continue to receive the same treatment in the future. I do, however, think that it would be unfortunate to brand all theists in the same mould as our Adras here (and I'm not saying that you've done that).

Judgment _doesn't_ contribute to the discussion, clearly. The great thing about Internet forums is that you can escape them  :Biggrin: , and read from level headed, cogent, inspired and well intentioned theists and atheists elsewhere.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> The universe is very big.


Makes sense to me.  :Smile: 




> Jamesian: master of the subordinate clause.


That there gets my vote for Quote of the Week.  :FRlol:

----------


## Countess

I love these arguments because they are perpetual and go nowhere (which makes them absurd).

No one will come to God by logic (because God says so - yes, my fellow Christians, it's in the Bible). The best an apologist can do is to facilitate the removal of intellectual obstacles. Other than that, beating your head against the wall will prove more beneficial to you than debating an atheist or other-faith believer.

There is a logic that precedes faith, and a logic that proceeds from faith, but faith itself is not logical - "Faith is the belief in things unseen", and it is a gift from God: 

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

If God gives it, you are neither responsible for your own faith nor can you impart your faith to another.

Just as I cannot understand how an atheist believes what he does, the atheist cannot understand my beliefs either. While "The first principle" argument and the existence of a double-helixed universe shaped like the tiniest chormosome in addition to prayers being answered and strange personal experiences prove to me beyond doubt that God exists, and just as Christ's death and resurrection touch my innermost being, so to an atheist it is merely synchronicity and circumstantial arguments.

Since we were chosen in Christ before the beginning of the world, predestined for his kingdom, called, justified, and are in the process of sanctification for future glorification, God is ultimately the owner of our faith, our lives and our souls. It is up to God to touch the heart of man; it is up to the Holy Spirit to persuade by overwhelming evidence His existence. All we can do is share the truth. The rest is out of our control.

So, no dead horses and whips, k?

----------


## Countess

PS: My maxims:

Religion is man's approach to God; Christ is God's approach to man.

Science cannot measure religion just as religion cannot measure science. Faith answers "why"; science answers "how".

While Truth is Objective, truth is subjective. I subjectively believe in an objective Truth. As I am not omniscent, omnipotent, or omnipresent, I am only experiencing a fragment of reality. 

All religion contains truth, but Christ is the ultimate Truth.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What if you've got the wrong religion? There have been thousands of religions aside from Christianity, you know. What if the Aztecs were right? Come to think of it, what if you've got the wrong _sect_? Some Christians think that acceptance of Christ as your personal savior is enough to get you into heaven, some think that good works are required, some think something else. If you pick the wrong one, you wind up in hell. I hope you've chosen your religion carefully.


Denominational membership does not guarantee heaven; the Bible makes clear the criteria for eternal life. Anything that disagrees with that offers false hope. The Aztecs cannot be correct because their vision of God cannot explain the origin of the universe, sin, morality and the solution to the problem of human sinfulness. All you need "choose" is Jesus Christ.




> Sound Darwinian reasons.


Here's the trap that Naturalism requires we step into in order to claim that only material reality is what is real: we must turn love into a mere adaptive characteristic (or worse, a chemical reaction); the things that people do for love defy mere trivial explanations like "herd instinct," "chemical reaction," "desire to perpetuate oneself through children," "biological necessity" and whatever other absurdities that can be presented. Love defies logic, biology and chemicals. Period.

Anybody who's been in love knows that it cannot simply be _biology_.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Denominational membership does not guarantee heaven;


That depends extremely heavily on which denomination you happen to be asking.




> Anybody who's been in love knows that it cannot simply be _biology_.


What makes you think I haven't?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That depends extremely heavily on which denomination you happen to be asking.


Denomination is secondary to what the Bible says. Period. Those that indicate that a certain denomination of Christianity is the "acid test" for eternal life have place denominational "theology" over Christian theology.




> What makes you think I haven't?


Oh, my, joe: do you personalize everything I say? Do I need to put the qualifier "except for cuppajoe" in my posts so that you'll take my comments in their proper light? And, did you wish to respond to my generalization?

----------


## billyjack

> the things that people do for love defy mere trivial explanations like "herd instinct," "chemical reaction," "desire to perpetuate oneself through children," "biological necessity" and whatever other absurdities that can be presented. Love defies logic, biology and chemicals. Period.
> 
> Anybody who's been in love knows that it cannot simply be _biology_.


.

thats your opinion. an atheist could argue that everything --including a splendid experience like love-- is biology or nature. after all, love is a feeling and feelings happen in our bodies and our bodies are natural/biological. thus, the love phenomenon could be explained reasonably with biology while abstaing from appeals to the beyond or god or soul. . .

and zep, saying that arguably the best part about being human -love- comes from beyond us rather than from within us seems like somewhat of an insult to mankind. it seems as though all the credit for that which is wonderful in life is given to god or the beyond. all the blame for the crappy parts of life is thrown at man. seems like god is a fair weather fan.

----------


## Adras

Allow me to apologize for my unoganized and completely unrepresentitive thoughts from me in my last post. I was physically and mentally drained after a long soccer game that went to over time. Also, I would like to explain that one of my best friends is an athiest. So, please don't think I am saying that Christianity is better than one thing or another. You see. I think I am out on a limb here in the world of Christianity. That is because I am not a fan of organized religion or religous thoughts that don't come from the Bible. Another reason being. If God is God, than why can't everything that science said happened, happened? Also, if God is God why can't everything Christians say happened, happened? Why can't they co-exist. As others have stated previously we are limited by the fact that we are human and thus can only imagine what we can see or prove. Yet God is not limited by those factors. I don't know really, all I know is exactly what I have seen. Children throw grown men because they were possesed. A child in Panama had a brain tumor and we prayed for her two hours later she was supposed to be in surgery, instead she was at the park playing with friends. I stand firm that Logic and Faith can co exist. Logically when you sit down on a chair that has supported you before you know by its design and nature it should do it again. Yet you don't know that for sure. So when you sit down and put your weight on it you are putting faith in the belief that it will support you. Are you not?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Well you've hit a point , can science and belief in God co-exists?
Simple, Yes. Many important truths were revealed in the Bible thousands of years before they were discovered by modern scientist.
Such as the earth being a sphere suspended in space (Isa.40:22;Job 26:7)
Ocean currents flow through the sea(Ps.8:8)
And that winds form a circulating system(Eccles. 1:6)
Many points they support and co-exist, the major break being the begining
but aside from this I believe they do .
I am also a "fan" of the Bible and stand by its truth but if you look at Genesis evolution and creation can not co-exist(joe i'am not here to argue evolution so chill)so you must choose one or the other. Believe God or believe a text book.
P.S. some of the greatest scientist whose researches and analyses that lead to our very laws and concepts of science which brought about the modern scientific age were Bible believeing Christians.Just to name a few Newton,Pasteur,Linnaeus,Faraday,Pascal,Lord Kelvin,Maxwell,and Kepler.There are several more I'am just too lazy to type them now.

----------


## billyjack

> (joe i'am not here to argue evolution so chill)so you must choose one or the other. Believe God or believe a text book. 
> 
> .


only syths deal in absolutes--obi won kanobi.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> thats your opinion.


Yes - I'm aware of that. That's why I said it and not something else which was someone else's opinion.




> an atheist could argue that everything --including a splendid experience like love-- is biology or nature.


Yes - and that would be their _opinion_ as well. See how neatly this works?




> after all, love is a feeling and feelings happen in our bodies and our bodies are natural/biological. thus, the love phenomenon could be explained reasonably with biology while abstaing from appeals to the beyond or god or soul. . .


And this would be _your_ opinion...I think I see a pattern developing.  :Smile:  




> and zep, saying that arguably the best part about being human -love- comes from beyond us rather than from within us seems like somewhat of an insult to mankind. it seems as though all the credit for that which is wonderful in life is given to god or the beyond. all the blame for the crappy parts of life is thrown at man. seems like god is a fair weather fan.


It's not an insult to say that our ability to love comes from God - if it is He who created us - any more than it is to say I inherited my musical ability from my musically inclined father. 

Why should God take blame for that which he is not responsible?

----------


## Adras

> Well you've hit a point , can science and belief in God co-exists?
> Simple, Yes. Many important truths were revealed in the Bible thousands of years before they were discovered by modern scientist.
> Such as the earth being a sphere suspended in space (Isa.40:22;Job 26:7)
> Ocean currents flow through the sea(Ps.8:8)
> And that winds form a circulating system(Eccles. 1:6)
> Many points they support and co-exist, the major break being the begining
> but aside from this I believe they do .
> I am also a "fan" of the Bible and stand by its truth but if you look at Genesis evolution and creation can not co-exist(joe i'am not here to argue evolution so chill)so you must choose one or the other. Believe God or believe a text book.
> P.S. some of the greatest scientist whose researches and analyses that lead to our very laws and concepts of science which brought about the modern scientific age were Bible believeing Christians.Just to name a few Newton,Pasteur,Linnaeus,Faraday,Pascal,Lord Kelvin,Maxwell,and Kepler.There are several more I'am just too lazy to type them now.


This is one place I have yet to determine. Evolution and God. It will take some time of pondering. Even though it seems so simple the conclusion of God co-existing with science took me quite some time. Endless Sunday's sitting in a chuch pew tuning out the pastor while i work on my own in my mind. One day I'll have an answer.

----------


## aeroport

> Yes - I'm aware of that. That's why I said it and not something else which was someone else's opinion.


But, am I mistaken in thinking that that is precisely what religion _is_? You would not be very likely to believe it, after all, had someone not told you about it.




> Yes - and that would be their _opinion_ as well. See how neatly this works?


Perhaps not so neatly as one might like to think, given that we're working with verifiable opinions... 




> And this would be _your_ opinion...I think I see a pattern developing.


This might be argued for a working _hypothesis_ - which, indeed, often arise out of scientific opinions - but this is beyond the stage of the hypothetical. This is science - opinions only remain as such for a limited time before being proven or disproven (at which point they become things like _laws_, which indicate all kinds of authority). 





> It's not an insult to say that our ability to love comes from God - if it is He who created us - any more than it is to say I inherited my musical ability from my musically inclined father.


Perhaps it’s just me, but it appears that your analogy is subverting your argument, given that ability comes from nothing but hard work – not some mythical hereditary connection. A deity’s appropriation of credit, then, for man’s higher inclinations is quite as ridiculous as a father’s calling the winner of the Van Cliburn ‘a chip off the old block’, especially considering its unwillingness to assume responsibility for man’s vices as well.




> Why should God take blame for that which he is not responsible?


Precisely.




> Oh, my, joe: do you personalize everything I say? Do I need to put the qualifier "except for cuppajoe" in my posts so that you'll take my comments in their proper light?


I am afraid the use of sarcasm - which has, after all, positively no function save that of hurting others - reveals something more of defensiveness than of certainty; which is to say, it shows a greater interest in asserting that one is right than in finding the truth. This is emphasized by the fact that, while attacking cuppajoe, you also happened to be avoiding the question…

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But, am I mistaken in thinking that that is precisely what religion _is_? You would not be very likely to believe it, after all, had someone not told you about it.


Religion is less an "opinion" than it is a choice one makes in terms of how one decides to understand and worship God.




> Perhaps not so neatly as one might like to think, given that we're working with verifiable opinions...


How do you figure this is so? A verifiable opinion - what is that? Is that a "fact"? 




> This might be argued for a working _hypothesis_ - which, indeed, often arise out of scientific opinions - but this is beyond the stage of the hypothetical. This is science - opinions only remain as such for a limited time before being proven or disproven (at which point they become things like _laws_, which indicate all kinds of authority).


Why does billyjack's opinion get the status as "working hypothesis" but mine doesn't? Unless you're revealing your particular foundation for assessing reality (naturalism)?




> Perhaps its just me, but it appears that your analogy is subverting your argument, given that ability comes from nothing but hard work  not some mythical hereditary connection. A deitys appropriation of credit, then, for mans higher inclinations is quite as ridiculous as a fathers calling the winner of the Van Cliburn a chip off the old block, especially considering its unwillingness to assume responsibility for mans vices as well.


It was a weak analogy and I anticipated criticism on it. Christian theology (based on the Bible) indicates that - due to our fallen and inherently sinful nature - that the only good that humans do comes from God; our sinful nature makes us predisposed to choose evil - to choose selfishness over sacrifice, ourselves over our community; as such, only God can inspire from out of our evil nature anything good - because God is the source of all good in the universe. Since God has no part in evil, He cannot be responsible for our choices, because such a choice (to commit evil) is a rebellion against the good of God. As such, we are responsible for our _choices_ that lead to evil and responsible for our _choice_ to enact good - but the _desire_ to do good comes from God. The _desire_ to do evil comes from our sinful hearts (and Satan's relentless work to destroy the creation of God). My weak analogy was an attempt to bypass writing this lengthy paragraph. My error.





> I am afraid the use of sarcasm - which has, after all, positively no function save that of hurting others - reveals something more of defensiveness than of certainty; which is to say, it shows a greater interest in asserting that one is right than in finding the truth. This is emphasized by the fact that, while attacking cuppajoe, you also happened to be avoiding the question


I appreciate your evaluation of my sarcasm - but I find it interesting that few posters provide cuppajoe with a similar evaluation (seeing as how he is quite capable of unleashing biting sarcasm himself). cuppajoe's marked habit of taking my generalizations and making them into personal attacks on himself becomes a bit tiring to have to deal with because - instead of dealing with the philosophic point I'm making - he decides to make it into a personal battle between he and I.

I need not answer cuppajoe's question because his question was irrelevant to the statement I made. His question was a rhetorical move to suggest that my generalization was false and that exceptions to my comment exist (as if I'm unaware of the existence of exceptions to rules). 

I appreciate your balanced and controlled tone - but I'm not sure I necessarily appreciate your attempt to analyze my sarcasm; sarcasm is not always inappropriate. Granted, I probably am defensive and I ought not let sarcasm slip out - but I question whether that's your job to do on a public forum on a post not directed towards you.

No hard feelings, though.

----------


## aeroport

> Religion is less an "opinion" than it is a choice one makes in terms of how one decides to understand and worship God.


But is it not built on the opinion that this deity exists  I mean to say, the opinion that the Bible is a valid and reliable source?




> How do you figure this is so? A verifiable opinion - what is that? Is that a "fact"?


Yes  Im sorry. That was a bit of my own feeble sarcasm. (You are right; it does sometimes seep in of its own accord.)




> Why does billyjack's opinion get the status as "working hypothesis" but mine doesn't?


I think my wording has confused things here. What I intended to convey was that what billyjack was alluding to was, if fact, more than hypothetical. Were it inconclusive, it would still be merely a hypothesis (having not yet been proven) and could indeed be called an opinion. However, one differentiation I had planned to make  and forgot  and that I think youve caught on to here was that there is indeed a difference between believing that biology can account for love and having indisputable evidence to that effect  namely, the former is an opinion, the latter not. I of course believe the latter to be the case (hence my remark about verifiable opinions), but, as Ive not actually read a scientific account of this (call it laziness), its something I wont stand too firm on.




> Christian theology (based on the Bible) indicates that - due to our fallen and inherently sinful nature - that the only good that humans do comes from God; our sinful nature makes us predisposed to choose evil - to choose selfishness over sacrifice, ourselves over our community; as such, only God can inspire from out of our evil nature anything good - because God is the source of all good in the universe.


Can we so easily attach such positive values to sacrifice and community?




> I need not answer cuppajoe's question because his question was irrelevant to the statement I made. His question was a rhetorical move to suggest that my generalization was false and that exceptions to my comment exist (as if I'm unaware of the existence of exceptions to rules).


It did indeed suggest that your generalization was false  how is that not relevant? This isnt something conditional, like gravity, which only applies here and there. All human beings are about the same in this sense. I should think it worthy of consideration that someone who believes in biologys capability of accounting for love claims indeed to have experienced it. 




> sarcasm is not always inappropriate.


Perhaps, but, directed towards an individual, it is rarely  if ever  kind. 




> Granted, I probably am defensive and I ought not let sarcasm slip out - but I question whether that's your job to do on a public forum on a post not directed towards you.


Understandable. I did indeed hesitate for this reason, but quite honestly I was interested in seeing where you would take the discussion following that remark; I should perhaps have mentioned as much. I was not trying to play 'Forum-Nazi'.




> No hard feelings, though.


I am glad for it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But is it not built on the opinion that this deity exists  I mean to say, the opinion that the Bible is a valid and reliable source?


Yes it is.





> Yes  Im sorry. That was a bit of my own feeble sarcasm. (You are right; it does sometimes seep in of its own accord.)


I understand.





> I think my wording has confused things here. What I intended to convey was that what billyjack was alluding to was, if fact, more than hypothetical. Were it inconclusive, it would still be merely a hypothesis (having not yet been proven) and could indeed be called an opinion. However, one differentiation I had planned to make  and forgot  and that I think youve caught on to here was that there is indeed a difference between believing that biology can account for love and having indisputable evidence to that effect  namely, the former is an opinion, the latter not. I of course believe the latter to be the case (hence my remark about verifiable opinions), but, as Ive not actually read a scientific account of this (call it laziness), its something I wont stand too firm on.


I think science/biology can explain that something exists and that it connects to something (i.e. that when we show/experience love biology does play a role) but that "role" does not necessarily mean that love ends up being that and only that. Are you following (I ask because I don't think I'm being very clear)? In other words: I believe that spiritual things have consequences in the "real" world of physicality: thus, when we experience love (or even attraction) I do believe that the brain releases chemicals and all that stuff - but I deny that that is _all_ love is: I believe the physiological/chemical reaction is love in action, but these things do not constitute the "being" of love. God designed us to love, and the fact that we "feel" it is due (in part) to our physiological/emotional reactions. But the choice to love is not merely chemicals or "herd instinct" because then we remove (to a greater or lesser degree) the idea of free choice.

Blah...this is hard to do and I can't think straight right now.





> Can we so easily attach such positive values to sacrifice and community?


The commitment to give up for the sake of others rarely has negative effects; that said, of course there are times when that can be detrimental. But, overall, I think these investing more in those two terms might reveal some clear benefits for humanity.





> It did indeed suggest that your generalization was false  how is that not relevant? This isnt something conditional, like gravity, which only applies here and there. All human beings are about the same in this sense. I should think it worthy of consideration that someone who believes in biologys capability of accounting for love claims indeed to have experienced it.


I shouldn't have said "irrelevant"; what I should have said was that cuppajoe's reponse was a _rhetorical question_: just the asking of it made joe's point and I need not have answered it because it was a rhetorical question.





> Perhaps, but, directed towards an individual, it is rarely  if ever  kind.


True - and I suppose I owe joe an apology (again!  :Blush:  ).




> Understandable. I did indeed hesitate for this reason, but quite honestly I was interested in seeing where you would take the discussion following that remark; I should perhaps have mentioned as much. I was not trying to play 'Forum-Nazi'.


Got it. No harm no foul.

----------


## kari

I think that you can believe in God and not join any specific religion. That is pretty much where I am at the moment. I grew up baptist, was a mormon for 6 years...and have since left that church and not gone to any for the past year or so...and am very content. I do however, still read scriptures, and pray a lot. I rely more on my personal relationship with God, and my efforts to keeping that up rather than showing up to a church and feeling I did my part. I may have misunderstood some things mentioned in the first post, but I thought I had read that if there is a God that He will prevent you from sinning? God does not prevent us from sinning...He cannot (my belief anyways). We each have our free agency, do think what we want, do what we want. You have the free agency to go up to a person and punch them in the face or to refrain from doing so. God couldn't prevent you from sinning, unless He took away your free agency. But I agree that He can most certainly help you from sinning! He also cannot prevent you from going astray, for the same reasons. I have known some very religious people in my life, that are now completely opposite. I wasn't quite sure if you were saying you didn't believe, or if you were asking advice if you should...I was a bit confused. So if my advice isn't of any help at all, of if it isn't making sense with what you were asking..feel free to exclude it!
Kari

----------


## kari

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 
What if you've got the wrong religion? There have been thousands of religions aside from Christianity, you know. 

Sorry if someone already commented on this more....but I wanted to add that there are many religions that feel like that...their way is the only way. I had read something once online, that really stuck with me dealing with this topic. Any religion that claims to be the only true way back to God...is ignorant, and that they are greatly lacking toleration for differences. I am sure I didn't word it exactly...but along the same lines. I did find that to be very true...and has helped in out a lot. I think that if you are very worried about being in the wrong religion, that you need to pray for guidance, and develop a stronger relationship with God..so that you will know YOUR personal standing with God...and how He feels about where you are spiritually. Then you don't need to worry about what others say, doubt if you are in the right place....hear it from the source!
Kari

----------


## badaxxe

Is religion a way to control the masses? Christianity is built on Faith. Would a building built on Faith stand? I am a product of my envirement. Told there was a Santa Claus, tooth fairy easter bunny (whats the deal with eggs, wouldn't it be the easter chicken?) I don't know what to believe. So what am I?


God is Love
Love is Blind 
Ray Charles is Blind
Ray Charles is God

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Is religion a way to control the masses?


According to cynics: yes; according to Christians: no.




> Christianity is built on Faith. Would a building built on Faith stand?


You cannot mix the physical (building) with the mental (faith).




> I am a product of my envirement. Told there was a Santa Claus, tooth fairy easter bunny (whats the deal with eggs, wouldn't it be the easter chicken?) I don't know what to believe. So what am I?


Technically, you sound like an agnostic - but only if you're claiming that you're not sure if God exists. You don't say that specifically, so it's not clear exactly what you are. Perhaps the term "searching" is most appropriate. What is it you wish to find?





> God is Love


A literal truth.



> Love is Blind


An evaluative judgment of the _human experience_ of love.




> Ray Charles is Blind


Factual statement.




> Ray Charles is God


Invalid conclusion (but fun - a variation on the old "women=evil" syllogism).

----------


## hyperborean

> According to cynics: yes; according to Christians: no.



A course in world politics will clear that up. 




> You cannot mix the physical (building) with the mental (faith).


Exactly. It's all in your heads (mental -faith).

----------


## weepingforloman

> Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 
> What if you've got the wrong religion? There have been thousands of religions aside from Christianity, you know. 
> 
> Sorry if someone already commented on this more....but I wanted to add that there are many religions that feel like that...their way is the only way. I had read something once online, that really stuck with me dealing with this topic. Any religion that claims to be the only true way back to God...is ignorant, and that they are greatly lacking toleration for differences. I am sure I didn't word it exactly...but along the same lines. I did find that to be very true...and has helped in out a lot. I think that if you are very worried about being in the wrong religion, that you need to pray for guidance, and develop a stronger relationship with God..so that you will know YOUR personal standing with God...and how He feels about where you are spiritually. Then you don't need to worry about what others say, doubt if you are in the right place....hear it from the source!
> Kari


This won't be popular, but I think I should say this. I think the new, Starbucks latte-fueled liberalism is off base--obviously racial/ethnic/religious discrimination is wrong, but that does not mean that all faiths are correct, or that all faiths _can_ be correct. If we assume that there is some fact to the spiritual life, especially considering there has to be, because even if it does not exist, that is a fact, then not all faiths can be correct. You cannot even follow Christianity well if you allow for other faiths to be an acceptable way ("I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me," Jesus said). However, this does not necessarily mean you have to be intolerant to be a Christian. We can tolerate, just not agree with. For the record, I am not a hateful person. I do not hate people of other faiths (I am expressly commanded not to). I have lots of friends that I totally disagree with, and very few that actually agree with just about anything I say.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Exactly. It's all in your heads (mental -faith).


Semantics won't cut it. If all mental processes/actions/beliefs/whatever are untrue, then anything you say is invalid as well (you have to think it to say it... even if you don't believe it, your brain sent the signals to your fingers to type).

----------


## Redzeppelin

> A course in world politics will clear that up.


I'd prefer a book (not a web site, by the way); I don't have time for a course. Recommendations?




> Exactly. It's all in your heads (mental -faith).


Yes - that's where it is (along with our hearts); don't put down what's in our heads - _your_ head's full of a lot of stuff too - some things less provable and logical that others.

----------


## Jennylc

I thought your peice was thought-provoking. It was neither offensive to theists, nor to atheists. It felt like a process of working out. It's good you're reading Marx. BTW: Communism failed because of the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracyand his doctrine of "Socialism in One Country", combined with a civil war within the Soviet Union itself, and a continuous onslaught of imperialist pressure (and sanctions) outside the country.

----------


## blazeofglory

> w
> Honesty is better than any other ideology. I am like that and choose to share with you all that I feel.


This is really a moving idea.

----------


## torn

Why do we have to BELIEVE in Christ and God to get to heaven?

----------

