CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Aside from the rampant sexism (which it got from its early spokespersons) and its wrongheaded notions about human superiority (which it got from Judaism), there is very little of Christianity that was not pilfered from earlier sun-god cults, most notably the cult of Mithras and the cult of Isis and Horus.
Not one thing claimed as "proof" of Christianity is unique or original to Christianity. Not a dying-rising son of god, not a creator deity, not miracles, not a holy book, not speaking in tongues, not prophecies that come true, not angelic hosts, not virgin birth, not persisting for a thousand years or more, not having a personal relationship with one's gods, not "salvation" in the afterlife, not "the end of the world," nothing. Its father-god is identical in every significant respect to the "pagan" shepherd-gods found both in earlier, and in unrelated, desert societies all over the place. That's not proof of a god; that's proof of the correctness of the underlying premises of the fields of sociology and cultural anthropology.
All of Christianity's myths and tenets were pastiched together from earlier "pagan" mythologies which in many cases had themselves persisted successfully for centuries. I'm sure some hopped-up Christian will downvote me for pointing these facts out, but they're inconveniently true.
What Christianity has produced since then is mostly sexual repression and genocide, a la the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burning, and the works of St. Augustine (just to offer up a few choice examples). This is because its philosophical underpinnings -- such as its model of the soul, its notions about the social roles of women, its ideas about humankind's relationship to the rest of the universe, and its concepts of "sin" as opposed to moral wrongdoing -- are all completely and thoroughly fubared.
So nah . . . nothing about Christianity proves it as the "best" explanation of the divine, just one of the currently-more-popular ones.
To the second point: my religion is the best path for me because it inspires my life choices, enhances my respect for and understanding of the universe, informs my sense of relationship to other beings, guides my moral decisionmaking, and resonates with the truth of my experiences and intuition. I would not ever presume to say that my understanding of "god" is "best" for everyone. Divine wonder and beauty are far too great to be forced into one face or one name. To label and confine "god" is to cease to have any hope of really understanding "god."
In the last ten days I talked with several people who went by the name Banshee, therefore your just a myth. :)
Before you criticize Christianity you ought to get your facts straight, because knocking down straw men doesn't persuade those who know differently. Here is a book to help you out:http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s;=books&qid;=1253572280&sr;=1-1
Also, about the assertion that Christianity is cobbled together from other religions. It's simply false, unless you have a wild imagination. I offer the following article as evidence contrary to your assertion. Please take the time to read the article I've provided a link to,
Finally, the kind of God I'm referring to exist independently of what I think or believe and conversely, whether or not you think He exist. Our existence is contingent on His.
But I would like to know what would count as proof of Christianity for you? Because it seems nothing I offer is adequate.
Yes, I glanced at your recommended book. I frankly thought it was silly. Talk about straw men! It actually argues that Christianity is the origin of the two-parent family. That’s bollocks, of course. Nor is Christianity the philosophy that first originated notions of human dignity. Buddhism had done that well before. The “preciousness and equal worth of every life” is also hardly inherent to Christianity – they killed heretics in droves. And Christian notions about salvation, far from being necessary to the continued preservation of civil rights, are deadly deadly fatal to society.
“Far too often throughout this work, Mr D'Souza presents conclusions which are not supported by his own claims, references, or observations. His thinking is muddled, uncoordinated, clearly biased, and in many cases demonstrably wrong.” – customer reviews, Amazon.com
“D'Souza gives credit to Christianity for everything from the principle of limited government to the development of the scientific method . . . Notice [his shifts in word choice] from a ‘nonmaterial’ to a ‘spiritual’ cause and then to a ‘creator.’ One would hope that these transitions would be supported later in the chapter. However, the same style of reasoning persists . . . D'Souza seems particularly proud of this use of Kant's philosophy to maintain that there is a reality of a completely different order. However, his chapter citations make essentially no reference to the huge philosophical literature exploring Kant's reasoning and its underlying assumptions . . . Furthermore, while Kant's philosophy is notoriously difficult to interpret, it may be that the distinction he makes has little to do with religion . . . This style of argumentation is not likely to convince atheists, or even doubters . . . It is hard to believe that D'Souza thinks that his arguments could convince someone who is not already committed to a theistic point of view. In any case, they would only establish the existence of a supernatural being of some sort. What is amazing, then, is that his arguments for Christianity in Chapter 25 consist almost exclusively of straightforward assertions of Christian doctrine. Almost nothing he says would be persuasive to someone with a different religious view.” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/william_faris/so-great.html
Oh, and the unsupported refutations of well-established links between the Christ myth and earlier pagan myths in your "recycled" article are simply and plainly incorrect, point blank.
So before you put up any more straw men in front of those who know better, you should get your facts straight. This will "help you out":
OK Banshee, help me out here. Buddhism, paganism and atheism all make spiritual claims and so does Christianity. Now I have no way to verify the spiritual claims of Buddhism, paganism, atheism, etc. etc. But you want me to believe that these claims are more credible and supercede the claims of Christianity; which can be verified. Why would I believe the spiritual claims of other worldviews and not those of Christianity? Why would I think other worldviews, that can't be verified, are true and the one that can be verified is false? Help me with that cause it doesn't make sense.
Also, if Buddhism, paganism, atheism, Christianity, etc. etc. are all worldviews in the sense that each has a it's own unique theology and anthropology and there is only one way that reality is, Then it would stand to reason that only one of these worldviews could be correct, that being the one that corresponds the most to reality. One way to test it's correspondence would be to look at the fruit it produces. If it's an accurate understanding of reality then it ought to work well in reality, things add up.
So what happens when we inspect the fruit? One clearly stands head and shoulders above the rest and actually is in a class by itself. You may cite all the claims you want to the contrary, But they can't overcome the weight and testimony of history. No serious scholar would deny the massive impact Christianity has had on world history for good, it was a watershed moment unparalleled by any other. That ripple affect is still being felt today, 2000 yrs later.
And yes, Christianity has it's warts like the Crusades etc. But those were men acting inconsistent to the teaching of Christianity. Whereas when Stalin's regime massacred tens of millions of people it was consistent with and the logical conclusion of his atheism grounded in Darwinian Evolution, survival of the fittest you know, just speeding up the process.
So you expect me to believe that Christianity was forged from all these other worldviews that are so completely different from Christianity that there is almost no analogy between them. And Christianity copied other worldviews who's theology and anthropology are world's apart?
Banshee, it would appear from the evidence that it might actually be the other way around from what you claim. But who knows, I could be wrong and you might be right. I mean after all you believe nothing can create something and life can come from non-life, all very reasonable assumptions indeed, with fantastic arguments to support them.
and the unsupported refutations of well-established links between the Christ myth and earlier pagan myths in your "recycled" article are simply and plainly incorrect, point blank.
unsupported refutations? Guess you didn't look at the footnotes. I know, facts are annoying, especially when they contradict your assertion.
Final thought, I'm not an idiot. I know the difference between proof and persuasion. So, I know that nothing I say will persuade you nor will any argument I offer not be disputed. Because you already told me "nothing you offer is adequate proof" I just think Christianity is worth thinking about. :)
1. Christianity is most certainly not "verified." To the contrary, it looks to me like the vestiges of a primitive tribal belief in an egomaniacal desert-god that has 2000 years of conservative power politics mashed in.
2. Folowers of other religions "verify" their faiths in the same way you do -- they believe, and -- perhaps because religious people of any faith tend to look at the world through the lens of belief -- their perceptions of reality match their beliefs, and thus they accept this as proof. If you want to "verify" Buddhism, go live like a Buddhist for a few years, embrace their faith, and see what it does for you. This is the only way to "verify" a belief. For example, I was a devout Christian for several years; that's why now that I'm fully grown and have had exposure to other faiths and beliefs, and have seen Christianity fail to inspire people in any way that strikes me as meaningful or deep while at the same time succeeding in switching their heads straight to off, that I am convinced Christianity is -- at least in relation to my path to god -- utter bollocks. Why d'you think I know dick-all about Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, Taoism, Wicca, or the Hare Krishna? It's because I left Christianity and went seeking until I found what I was looking for -- a faith that accorded with me as correctly describing and enhancing my relationship with the universe.
3. The footnotes in "recycled" were to incestuous Christian writings, not scholarly articles.
4. There's no reason only one worldview must be correct.
5. A great, great many scholars argue that Christianity has been a nightmare force -- some even argue that Josephus plain made Christ up.
6. Christianity stands head and shoulders above the rest in atrocities, hands down. That's the only arena in which it appears to have outstripped other religions. Its philosophy is simpleminded, its mythology primitive even by ancient standards, and its theology egocentric in the extreme, so as a method of religious thought it seems to me to be near the bottom of the barrel. But I will certainly give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge Christianity as the religion responsible for more torture, death, warfare, and mayhem than pretty much any other faith that's ever been followed. (I only say "pretty much" because Islam might give you guys a run for your money.)
7. Your point about Stalin is a red herring and has nothing to do with either religion or atheism, but with politics and power. It's also a lot like arguing that since Stalin's crimes were more egregious than those of Jeffrey Dahmer, we should all praise Jeffrey Dahmer for being such a really great guy.
8. No, nothing you offer is adequate proof -- and the reason is because I've already heard every argument you could possibly make and I'm not persuaded. I've read all the major Christian theologians from Augustine to C.S. Lewis. I've been to services in every denomination including the charismatic snake-handlers. I've heard everybody's accounts of Unverified Personal Gnosis (and have had several of my own that point AWAY from Christianity). I have done a great deal of reading and study on religion, and am convinced that from its very inception Christianity has routinely ignored, perverted, and often even reversed the actual teachings of Christ on almost every topic from personal lifestyle choices to the nature of god. And finally, I decided long ago that even if by some insane twist the Christian view of god (which near as I can tell isn't much like Christ's view of god) could possibly be correct, their god is still a prick who does not deserve my respect let alone my praise, and I don't want anything to do with him. So what d'you think you might say that I haven't heard already?
9. Let's be honest here -- neither of us wil ever convince the other because we are both believers. If we could each make a YouTube video of our personal deities speaking to the other and saying "look, it's me, I'm God," it still probably would not make much of a dent. You are committed to your religion, and I to mine.
OK, got it. You still have to deal with the fact the Jesus was a real man who lived in a real place, in a real time in history. That is undeniable and no other religion can claim that it is set in the context of real human history. And that history tells a different story than you.
Final thought, good luck. I'm not impressed with your mental gymnastics and I doubt your maker will be either, since He is omniscient. So your right and I'm wrong, you win, game over and enjoy life beyond reason.
Good grief, man. I suppose that's a Christian for you. Eventually they always revert to threatening that their big daddy god will spank you for disagreeing with them -- thus confirming my perception that Christians are childish brats and their god is a total prick.
So much for your whole "morality grounded in reason and a higher justice" horsehockey -- apparently it's really "do what I say and believe what I believe or else my god is gonna hurt you real bad."
Well crap, man, anybody can bully people, with or without a god's name. That certainly doesn't speak well of "Christian moral values." If that's all your god has got, is the ability to bully people, that's no more persuasive of "rightness" than the conduct of any other bully.
Gandhi remarked some decades ago how little Christians have in common with Christ. He was right, and it's sorta sad.
Wasn't it one of your guys who coined that whole "more flies with honey" bit?
I also thought your would-be redeemer said something about turning the other cheek, meekness, humility, and all that good crap. Also there were some bits about not praying on streetcorners and not preaching where your message isn't wanted. But hey, no biggie -- those are only the teachings of your messiah, right? What the heck, how 'bout you just violate the teachings of the figure on whom your religion is allegedly based as a matter of routine course.
For the record, let it be noted that at no point did I resort to siccing my deities on you. My gods have no need to threaten people of different faiths or to bully those who call on the divine by other names.
Even if the historical veracity of Jesus is taken as a given, it proves nothing but that a dude lived and some people made a religion using his name. That happens sort of a lot in history.
And, of course other religions can "claim that [they are] set in the context of real human history." Four words, man: SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA THE BUDDHA. You might also consider just what the hell the function of the Dalai Lama is, if it is not to be part of "a religion set in the context of real human history." I'd also be mighty curious as to where Confucianism got its name if not after a figure "set in the context of real human history" . . .
I have done no "mental gymnastics." I've just cited to known facts.
Christianity is completely pilfered from earlier faiths. This is a matter of historic record. We know, for example, that early Christians sawed the horns off of statutes of Isis and Horus, threw a veil on them, and put 'em right back up as "Madonna and Child." We know this because we have the statues. We have lots of artifacts that show how Christianity pilfered earlier faiths, as well as the similarities with the earlier faiths themselves.
We also know that Christianity has been the driving force behind a great many deaths on a great many occassions. We know this because we have the historical record and it shows a bunch of people running off in the name of the Christian god to massacre a bunch of people who didn't believe in the Christian god, not just once but many many times over the course of centuries.
Those aren't "mental gymnastics." Those are just facts.
Also, my maker is always delighted to commune or communicate with me. I'm sorry you don't think you can encounter yours until you're dead. Seems like a bit of a waste of life, if you believe yourself to be separated from god. But I guess you're getting something out of it or else you wouldn't keep doing it.
I'm not sure what your "beyond reason" crack is supposed to mean since I have yet to see anything that looks at all like "reason" from you. First you cite to some goofy author who claims that Christianity is responsible for everything from sliced toast to waterskiing, then you make a bunch of unsupported assertions about how your belief system is way better than everyone else's although you offer no proof of this at all, and then you insult me and threaten me with your god and his hellfire. Oh, and you also keep downvoting everything I post, like a complete friggin' child.
I'm not impressed with your BS (belief system), your arguments, your attitude, or your deity. And as for your maker . . . well, if it were my maker I'd say that god is fortunately more tolerant of human nonsense and more patient with stunted spiritual growth than I am, but I don't think that's particularly true of your god, so good luck with that, man. I don't envy you your worldview, your ideas of deity, or your anticipated afterlife; thanks anyways but I'm quite happy with my own.
Wow, you sure got a lot to say and you sure seem angry, Anyways,were did you get this notion that I'm saying "do what I say and believe what I believe or else my god is gonna hurt you real bad".
How is that what you claim? If God exist and if He is omniscient do you not think He would not know the difference between fact and fiction, between what He said and didn't say? I do and I'm convinced He has spoken rather clearly. So I'll I'm saying is that if you think you can out reason the author of reason, good luck. It's your game and if you lose, I've got nothing to do with it and I didn't sic em' on you.
I do not believe that "the author of reason" is also a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole who sends his creations to hell because he doesn't like the names they use to worship. That is absolutely inconsistent with any sane notion of a creator and thus I am convinced that Christianity, as defined and practiced by most Christians throughout history and up to the current day, is nothing but a fat, steaming load of runny horseshit. God is simply not the psychotic whack-job that you guys like to pretend he is.
And even if you were correct, I would far rather spit on your god for all eternity than give that abomination a single word of praise, for such a god would deserve no praises. (And I am not referring to Christ as the bible depicts him -- since Christians routinely ignore Christ's actual words and demeanor -- but rather to the cocked-up Christian notion of who "god" is and what "god" wants and how "god" behaves.) A god of compassion, justice and wisdom would never act the way that Christianity has historically described god as acting, and I know this because I am far less perfect in compassion, justice, and wisdom than god and I would never do such a horrific thing as to sentence other beings to torture for all eternity. When people act the way your god is supposed to act, we don't compliment their sense of justice and compassion; we call them "tyrants" and "monsters."
But god is not an asshole, and any religion that posits god as such is dangerously wrong. That's not "out-reasoning" god, that's reasoning to god.
So all I'm saying is, threatening me with your god and his hellfire -- which is absolutely the implied subtext of your repeated assertions that I am trying to "out-reason" god or that god will "not be impressed" with my understanding of him/her/them -- confirms only that your god is a total prickstain who does not deserve my worship or praise. It does the full-on opposite of convincing me of the rightness of your faith. In fact, I have a very hard time distinguishing in practice between your "god" and your "devil" -- that's how screwy the Christian religious "morality" looks from the outside.
And trying to attribute your threats to your god, who has yet to post on this website or any other, just makes you and your fellow Christians look like a bunch of whiny bullies in search of a Cosmic Rat-Bastard to do your dirty work for you. God didn't threaten me with hellfire; you did.
So well done spreadin' your "good news", there, Christian! Way to affirm that your god is a psychopath who I want nothing to do with! I'm sure Christ would be super pleased with how the Christians have completely discarded all his teachings on God. But hey, by the terms of your belief I guess you'll get to find that out when you die, huh? Shit, well given your god's penchant for proverbially pulling the wings off of flies for even the slightest affront, good luck with that. It's your hell and you can go burn in it; I've got nothing to do with it.
Well let's say you are correct about me and other Christians, what does that prove about Christianity? Oh yeah, you attacked Christians and not the truth claims of Christianity. isn't that a aaah, hmm, let me see, oh yeah, genetic fallacy.
I down vote your arguments for missteps in logic, not because I don't like them.
And finally, insult is no argument, it's a failure to provide one.
"and the unsupported refutations of well-established links between the Christ myth and earlier pagan myths in your "recycled" article are simply and plainly incorrect, point blank."
This is the part that is being disputed. For example let us take the mighty Lake of fire from the Book of Revelations. In fact one link of the Christ myth and the Egyptian myth can be proven. I am just going after the Judgement day,Second Death, Lake of fire part of the Christian religion.
Nope, nothing you offer is adequate proof. I've spent time immersed in Christian theology, and I've read all its greatest scholars and apologists, and I've rejected it!
:D
And, my assertions about its historical origins are entirely correct.
:D
And, you have not proven that your notions about god, or what that god is like, suggest that such god actually has substance and being outside your own head!
OOH, the cardinal sin of political correctness. No, I am not so gullible as to allow my brain to fall out on the floor. Your specious insults are not helping your case.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has not burdened you with the responsibility of proving His existence. Nor has He burdened any man with such a task.
Why do you labor as though you are doing God a favor by attempting to prove his existence?
"Apologetics is the whole of the consensus of the views of those who defend a position in an argument of long standing. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense. Early Christian writers (c 120-220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists . . . Early church fathers who were Christian apologists include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome . . . Thomas Aquinas [was] an influential Catholic apologist . . . Francis Schaeffer [was] a conservative Protestant Christian apologist . . . In the period between 1800 and the mid-1900s, there were a number of Christian apologist/scholars such as William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), William Henry Green (1825–1900), Robert Dick Wilson (1856–1930), and Oswald T. Allis (1856–1930) . . . The Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton, the Anglican C. S. Lewis . . . the evangelical Norman Geisler, the Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery, and the Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the 20th century." -- The Wiki
#1 Truly, many men and women think they are apologists for God and Christianity,but God has not appointed them. ROTFL
#2 Why do you dispute that which I do not affirm or deny?
#3 While I am not in complete disagreement with all that you state about any subject, I do want you to be aware of the fact that we like disliking one another. This is acceptable! May we argue for our views and not for ourselves.
2. Because I believe I misunderstood the point of your contention, which appears to be that "god" (if such exists) does not personally have apologists (agreed); I read it as referencing specifically the god at issue, who has apologists aplenty, but I think now that is not how you had meant it.
Fascinating, did He tell you this or did you just come up with it on your own? And why should I believe you are accurately representing Him? But I must say the Bible doesn't argue for the existence of God, it assumes it. Funny thing also is that it doesn't acknowledge that atheist or agnostics exist, it just assumes they don't
See, I'm a follower of Christ and He told me:
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Now since I'm a follower of Christ would it be more reasonable for me to obey Him or you?
Now since He commanded me, there is at least one of us. But I'm not alone, history is full of us and we aren't going anywhere, ah ha ha ha :)
Fascinating, did He tell you this or did you just come up with it on your own? The scriptures validate my inference. And why should I believe you are accurately representing Him? I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE MY WORDS! But I must say the Bible doesn't argue for the existence of God, it assumes it. I’ve asserted the same within this debate!Funny thing also is that it doesn't acknowledge that atheist or agnostics exist, it just assumes they don't False!!!
For the scriptures are predicated upon the premise that all men worship a god; the only question that remains is: What is the name of your god? (The first commandment)
See, I'm a follower of Christ and He told me: You bare witness of yourself; your testimony is therefore not true.
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Now since I'm a follower of Christ would it be more reasonable for me to obey Him or you?
Whoa! Whoa!
Jesus was speaking to the eleven disciples (apostles). You were not alive 1900+ years ago, therefore you cannot be one of them , the apostles, who were commanded to make disciples of all nations….
Now since He commanded me, there is at least one of us. But I'm not alone, history is full of us and we aren't going anywhere, ah ha ha ha :)
Self-evidently false! Jesus only commanded the apostles to spread the gospel, you are not an apostle, therefore jesus commanded you not!
Final statement: If I bare witness of the truth, which should you believe,Me, or the truth? The truth,obviously!
To label and confine "god" is to cease to have any hope of really understanding "god."
Wow, you did nothing but label and confine the God of Christian doctrine, and therefore you have no hope of really understanding the concept of the Christian's God!
Forego the verbosity of your BS arguments and simply affirm that you believe in a God of your own imagination. And stop using your lack of understanding of your God, which you can't label or confine, as a broad measure of what God is or is not.
Shall I defame your nameless, faceless God? Oops, I forgot, how can I defame a God with multiple names and faces that exists only within your imagination?
You can worship what you want, but stop insulting others for that of which you too are guilty.
I did not argue that definitional labels of a god or a faith are not of value, either intellectually, socially, or even spiritually. I argued (as a side point no less) that attempts to pigeonhole the divine into one such label are mentally limiting. The thrust of my post had to do with the un-originality of Christianity, which is fact, and with my assessment of its impact on culture, which is negative. And certainly a debate label such as "Why is Christianity the best explanation" invites such criticisms -- I would say it invites far more strongly-worded criticisms than I've yet seen here.
"Stop insulting others" is damn good advice for you to heed yourself.
"Stop insulting others" is damn good advice for you to heed yourself.
No shit Sherlock!
My rebuttal is not predicated upon what you did not state, my rebuttal is a valid response to what you did affirm. I will not rebutt what you do not affirm or deny, I will only challenge that which you assert.
I know you are aware of the fact that your rebuttal is a red-herring. (previous testing has proven this to me)
I've noticed that somehow sexism was brought up, so I won't be taking the side of the anti-Christians in this debate.
Instead, I'll take this opportunity to say that Philosophy is the only means of discussing God. Now, through logical argument we are able to find that Christianity is not the best explanation of God for it does not provide credible evidence for its claims about God, Jesus, etc. If Christianity were merely a religion about philosophy and not one based on "facts", it would be a better proponent for God.
As I stated in the beginning, though, I will not join in on the Christianity bashing because it seems that all you people are interested in is somehow pushing your own ideology along with the "disproving" or Christianity. It's annoying and takes away the whole point of the debate on God.
God is a part of Philosophy. To think about God, you must think beyond physical evidence and think towards reasoning. Physical evidence is good for understanding the world you live in, but if you wish to understand God you must first realize that God is not of the Universe you live in. God is something much more (this coming from the commonly accepted form of God; I'm not here to discuss those who worship golf clubs and such).
Does God exist? That is an impossible question to answer. Can God exist? As a natural being, it can not. God is a super natural being, and this is what's commonly accepted. The idea is that a super natural being CAN NOT exist, but it does for it bends the very laws of nature. Now, these laws of nature are to our understanding. We, though, do not understand the Universe enough to decide what are the ultimate laws of nature. How far nature can go. What is outside our Universe? Is there anything at all?
Is it possible that God is merely the missing piece to the Universal puzzle? Maybe what we find to be the intelligent or ultimate creator is a massive formation of energy that keeps us going. Is it God? Maybe we find that the formation that we see around us is merely conjured by a field of energy in an empty space and all of our "independent" thoughts are just part of a pattern formed by this random conjuration. Is this field of energy God? Maybe the Universe is God; for it is what creates everything we see. We can accept that w/e happens to us is because of the Universe. Maybe we are God. We know that w/e we see is there. We create the images. It's very possible that God doesn't have to be a single thinking being, but a being made up of many (our Nervous System and such). Maybe what we sense is our power over the Universe. Maybe if we could no longer sense it, it will no longer exist.
The Philosophy on God can go on forever with countless theories (mainly made up out of the blue, I'll admit) but in this case, God can not be debated with physical evidence, for the idea of God itself has surpassed physical understanding.
I agree with you on most fronts, however I am interested in this segment: As a natural being, it can not. Who do you believe Jesus was then? If you look at it from the trinity perspective, Jesus is God, God is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Now, that's all dependent on your beliefs and such, I am just interested about your views on Jesus.
If Jesus is God in the Christian perspective, he is still not a natural being. A natural being can not heal wounds with just the touch of his hands. A natural being can not bring back someone who was once dead. A natural being can not turn water into wine without physically adding the correct ingredients for wine (which according to the Bible, he did not). A natural being can not walk on water in it's normal, liquid form. A natural being can not rise from the dead. And a Natural being can not be a supernatural being (God).
If you one believes in Jesus, he must realize that what he believes in is supernatural.
Now you have me even more confused. :( So Jesus never existed on the earth? By natural being do you mean human being? Jesus was God in the flesh when he was on the earth ("I am in the Father and the Father is in me"). When he died, he became spirit and is now seated at the right hand of God. It can be confusing if you do not understand the trinity aspect of it. By all means, you are right when you say a human being cannot heal by himself or herself. What happens is, God gives the human being the ability to heal someone through the Holy Spirit. God is in heaven, and the Holy Spirit is on the earth. You are looking at it from a rational viewpoint, without an open mind that Jesus performed miracles.
To have the ability to do so would make you supernatural.
Of course, this is why I use philosophy to dispute religion itself. I just didn't want to do it since the anti-christian sentiment here was just ideological bullshit.
Jesus was a unique person though, wouldn't you agree? I believe that he was a natural being with supernatural abilities, i.e. God in the flesh. How can you use philosophy to dispute a belief? I believe hamburgers are tastier than hot dogs. How can you use philosophy to dispute this? It is a belief. I do not have to provide rational evidence for why I believe hot dogs are not tastier.
1. On the subject of Jesus, we can both agree that what Jesus did did not comply with natural law. And depending on our subjective attitude towards the miracles, Jesus's powers can be considered superior to natural law, for they bend the laws of nature.
2. Which food you find tastier is an opinion. That will always be subjective. Whether something is real or not is objective and can therefore be disproved. Whether Jesus existed or not and whether he performed these miracles or not is objective. He either performed these miracles or he didn't. So your belief in this can be debated, especially through philosophy, but through scientific means as well (not chemistry science, but other forms of physical science and history)
1. Yes, I agree. I also believe that human beings now (presently) have that same capability to perform miracles, albeit to a lesser degree (i.e. not walking on water but healing a sickness). What do you believe in this matter?
2. belief- something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. I see now that my first example wasn't a good one. :) Let's try this one. Say there is some weird religion out there that believes in flying hamsters as gods. If I said, I believe in flying hamsters, how could you use philosophy to disprove this? It is a subjective opinion that I hold (for example purposes). Now let's apply that to Christianity. I believe in God. This is also a subjective opinion. I have confidence that God exists, yet I don't have rigorous proof to back it up. How could philosophy prove my statement wrongly? I am saying all of this because I cannot see how someone can use philosophy to justify or unjustify a religious view.
1. We do not heal sickness with nothing but our hands. We heal it with medicine and physical means that are mathematical. There is no miracle involved, just technology. So we are not beyond natural.
2. I guess I should have been more specific. Philosophically, religion can be debated and disproved. But, this does not mean it was disproved at an objective stance (since no one can ever be sure about everything) but at a reasonable sense. In philosophy, we are able to see how most religions do not provide a good enough argument to create such a large belief system. We can't say that this is the definite answer, but philosophically it's good enough.
1. So you don't think it is possible for a human being to heal another human being through the Holy Spirit? I'm talking about no medicine or physical means involved here. Say God gives someone the gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12). By healing someone, God gives the person healing the ability to do it through the Holy Spirit, which is on the earth. It is not natural indeed, but I believe that it is very possible.
1. If by through the holy spirit, isn't really the Holy Spirit who is doing it? A human being can not harness unnatural powers unless he himself is unnatural. The body doesn't work that way.
The Holy Spirit needs a medium through which to perform the miracles, namely human beings. Why he can't just do it himself I do not really know. I have not put in the research to figure it out. I speak in tongues. Does that therefore make me unnatural? No, not at all. I am not perfect; I am just like everyone else. Of course, I have a lot more responsibility, but I am still treated the same as everyone else in God's eyes. So by your logic, miracles and speaking in tongues does not exist, or if they did than the people who have the gifts are not human or are not of this world? I've never had a discussion with a person who held this view before, so I am just intrigued as to your reasons why you have that certain view.
By my logic, all of those miracles that people claim happened are bullshit. Just to put it out there. That's not what I'm debating, though.
If the Holy Spirit is using us as mediums, than we are not the ones performing the miracles. It's the Holy Spirit. Jesus, on the other hand, was the Son of God. While his conception was through the Holy Spirit, the miracles that he performed were from him. This made him supernatural.
If you knew Orthodox Christology, then you would know He is both fully God and Fully man; and therefore could do those things.
But I ask, why should I believe the testimony of someone 2000 yrs removed from the event and not an eyewitness? Go back and read what Paul and the other eye witnesses wrote. Here is what the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D understood from what those eyewitnesses wrote.
That's odd, how do you account for the things he did like hunger, thirst, get tired, weep, feel sorrow, sleep, pray and get killed? was He God or a man? Or both?
I disagree with a number of your premises, but you presented them well.
I think you dismiss immanence (the idea that "god" is present in the physical universe) in favor of transcendence (the idea that "god" is "out there," e.g., "in heaven") far too quickly. There is nothing about the idea of a deity that inherently conflicts with natural order nor any good reason to think that god, if such exists, is "not of the universe you live in."
You speculate: "Maybe we find that the formation that we see around us is merely conjured by a field of energy in an empty space and all of our 'independent' thoughts are just part of a pattern formed by this random conjuration. Is this field of energy God? Maybe the Universe is God; for it is what creates everything we see." I would suggest that there is nothing about this notion of "god" that posits god as outside the normal realm of being or beyond the ken of scientific thought.
There is also nothing about miracles that necessarily requires "the supernatural," if one is willing to consider either the proposition that the scientific explanation for the miraculous has simply not been found or the proposition that the supernatural is in fact natural but is just not commonly "tapped."
An example: people actually can walk on water. It has to do with not breaking the surface tension of the water. I admit most folks would have a helluva time trying it, but it's been reproduced under laboratory conditions and there's a scientific explanation for it.
I am not convinced that god is "a part of philosophy" if that proposition is meant to stand for the idea that god can only be approached through philosophy. Centuries of philosophy have not given us, as a collective culture, a solid handle on the nature of "god." Mysticism (in just about any faith), on the other hand, seems to give its adherents what they feel to be a very good handle on the nature of god. So while I will agree that physical evidence is not objectively dispositive of the existence or the non-existence of god, I think you are too quick to discard its value as part of a subjective proof.
If Christianity is the best explanation, then why are there so many contradictions in the Bible? In Genesis, Cain is sent expelled, and then meets other people outside of his family. Given that at that time, according to the Bible, there were four people (Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel)(three, after Abel was killed), how were there other people? And he doesn't just meet one person, he meets families of several members, larger than his family. The Bible never mentions God creating other people.
In Revelations, the mountains flee into the sky. It's not that I can't believe that, because (assuming that there is a God and s/he is all-powerful) that wouldn't be much for God to accomplish. What I can't understand is how God can remove the mountains again, from a completely flat plain.
Given the amount of errors and contradictions in the Bible, of which two are given above, I have to say that Christianity is not the best explanation of God's existence.
When I read your argument I give you the judgment of charity. I don't automatically think your an idiot if you say something that is contradictory. I give you the benefit of the doubt and ask: maybe he meant this in another way than I think, is there another way of looking at this that makes more sense? What am I missing? Notice I put the fault on my understanding and not on what the author said. If you want others to give you the benefit of doubt, you'd do well to extend it to them also. So instead of jumping to the conclusion: ah ha this author is an idiot. Try looking at it the way the author did.
Christianity is a religion based on sun worship. The "God" Christians worship once had a name according to the Old Testament, "Yahweh". The title of "God" was instituted to put an end to all worship of other gods and deities for tighter control of the masses. The Ten commandments come straight from the Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125, they just rearranged the words. Study history and you'll see how man once had many gods and worshiped the sun and then you'll realize how Christianity was created to control the masses. Educate yourself first, believe second.
I don't know about worshipping the sun.. but I do know that all the stories in the bible, from the parting of water to the great flood, are also in other cultures and religions.
That's curious, how come the Bible is grounded in real human history and these other religions aren't. Why should I trust the claims of these other religions on spiritual matters when I can't even trust them to get history correct? It seems if I can trust the Bible on insignificant details I ought to be able to trust it on the major ones.
Tell me where I can view this Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125?
Also, could you tell me how the early church, which was under heavy persecution, controlled the masses? See I always thought that when you were being persecuted, the masses controlled you. But I guess I'm wrong, So help me understand this please.
The title of "God" was instituted to put an end to all worship of other gods and deities for tighter control of the masses
The Ten commandments come straight from the Egyptian Book of the Dead Spell 125, they just rearranged the words.
Christianity was created to control the masses.
Could you give me your sources for these assertions?
These other religions are as "grounded in human history" as your own. They were practiced historically, and believed with all the fervor you attribute to your own belief.
You can view the original Papyrus of Ani, on which spell 125 of the Book of Going Forth By Day (often incorrectly referenced as "The Book of the Dead") is written, in the British National Museum. Or, you could just show a tiny bit of initiative and Google it. The similarities between the two texts are noted on Wikipedia, for pete's sake. Not like it's hard to find.
The Negative Confession of Ma'at (also known as The Judgment of the Dead), a.k.a. Spell 125, is given in translation below.
In truth, I now come to you, and I have brought Ma'at [truth] to you,
And I have destroyed wickedness for you.
I have committed no evil upon men.
I have not oppressed the members of my family.
I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth.
I have had no knowledge of useless men.
I have brought about no evil.
I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
I have not brought my name forward to be praised.
I have not oppressed servants.
I have not scorned any god.
I have not defrauded the poor of their property.
I have not done what the gods abominate.
I have not cause harm to be done to a servant by his master.
I have not caused pain.
I have caused no man to hunger.
I have made no one weep.
I have not killed.
I have not given the order to kill.
I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples.
I have not fornicated.
I have not polluted myself.
I have not diminished the bushel when I've sold it.
I have not added to or stolen land.
I have not encroached on the land of others.
I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children.
I have not driven cattle from their pastures.
I have not captured the birds of the preserves of the gods.
I have not caught fish with bait made of like fish.
I have not held back the water when it should flow.
I have not diverted the running water in a canal.
I have not put out a fire when it should burn.
I have not violated the times when meat should be offered to the gods.
I have not driven off the cattle from the property of the gods.
I have not stopped a god in his procession through the temple.
I am pure. I am pure. I am pure. I am pure.
-----------------------
So here's what the 10 commandments would have looked like in the original, pre-Judaic, Egyptian form:
I have not scorned any god. ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.")
I have not wrought evil in the place of right and truth. I have not done what the gods abominate. ("Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain"; "Thou shalt not make graven images.")
I have not put out a fire when it should burn. I have not violated the times when meat should be offered to the gods. I have not stopped a god in his procession through the temple. ("Keep holy the Sabbath Day.")
I have not oppressed the members of my family. ("Honor thy father and thy mother.")
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan. I have not caused pain. I have not inflicted pain on anyone. I have not killed. ("Thou shalt not kill.")
I have brought truth to you. I have not brought my name forward to be praised. I have not caused harm to be done to a servant by his master. I have not given the order to kill. I have made no one weep. I have brought about no evil. ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.")
I have not fornicated. I have not polluted myself. ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.")
I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me. I have not defrauded the poor of their property. I have caused no man to hunger. I have not diminished the bushel when I've sold it. I have not added to or stolen land. I have not encroached on the land of others. I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers. I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers. I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples. I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples. I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples. I have not driven off the cattle from the property of the gods. I have not captured the birds in the preserves of the gods. I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children. I have not driven cattle from their pastures. I have not held back the water when it should flow. I have not diverted the running water in a canal. ("Thou shalt not steal"; "Thou shalt not covet anything belonging to thy neighbor.")
Could you tell me the method by which you came to this knowledge? intuition, something you saw or read? You sure know a lot about this God; is it your religion that informs you or just your opinion?
That's a pretty simplistic answer. Are you going to really tell the mom who's 1 1/2 yr old baby, who just got ran over by the family car 'ever one is his child and he responds to every one with love." Come on man, you need a better answer for that mom than that. What are you going to tell her, how are you going to comfort her?
It shouldn't be. The Christian God doesn't exist. Firstly, the Bible was written by primitive human beings who weren't bothered by the horribly immoral acts of the Bible's main character - God. God commits genocide by flooding the earth and destroying everyone alive (Genesis 6:7). He kills all the firstborns in the land of Egypt, even the firstborns of slave girls who played no part in oppressing the Israelites. God sets a plague upon the Israelites and kills a whopping twenty-four thousand of them because a bunch of them had sex with people who practiced a different religion than them (Numbers 25: 1-9). He sends two bears to tear forty two children to shreds for calling Elisha a “baldhead.” (Kings 2, 2: 23 – 24).
The list goes on and on. Additionally, branching out from the Old Testament for a minute, the New Testament and Old Testament are clearly incompatible; therefore, the former cannot be divinely inspired. There are obvious contradictions between the two.
John 3:13 says that nobody had ascended into heaven before Jesus, while Kings 2 2:11 states unequivocally that Elijah ascended into heaven.
Genesis 11:12 says that Shelah was Arphaxad's son, and the genealogy listed in Luke 3:35-36 contradicts it directly by saying that Shelah was his grandson.
Leviticus 20:9 condemns those who curse their parents and sentences them to death. On the other hand, Jesus declares in Luke 14:26 that no man can become his disciple unless they hate their parents, along with their wives and children, and brothers and sisters.
Numbers 25:9 states that God killed twenty-four thousand people in a plague, but in Corinthians 10:8, the death toll is twenty-three thousand.
Like the immoral acts of the Christian God, the list of trivial Christian contradictions goes on and on.
From this, we can see that the Christian bible was obviously written by fallible, mortal humans who could and did make mistakes. Christianity is not the best explanation of his being.
Most people make this mistake...they keep confusing God and religion....God is not religion/religion is not God...I have from a very good source that God dose not like religion...I will leave it at this for now...I am new to this site do not know how it works..I really do not know if anyone will see this no less respond to my statement..regards to all....
I will make my arguments below based on the underlying idea that God exists. You may not agree that God exists, but for the sake of discussion I will proceed from the premise that God does exist and that I am trying to make the case for Christianity.
In order to assess whether Christianity is the best explanation or worldview, the first thing to do is to examine other alternatives. Some alternatives can be canceled out easily - few people today believe in Zeus or Isis or Odin so there is little need to waste time trying to defend whether the Christian faith is more credible. In the West, the most significant contenders would be Judaism and Islam. While I don't want to insult people of the Muslim faith, the Koran was written for the most part by one individual whose claims to divine revelation do not have as many witnesses as were present for Christ's miracles and resurrection. While I don't want to insult people of the Jewish faith, I must ask is whether it was really coincidence that so many prophesies about the messiah from the Old Testament were fulfilled by Christ?
The second step in assessing whether Christianity is the most viable worldview is to look at internal consistency. Many non-Christians and non-Theists will be quick to point out a difference in a number or a detail that appears different in different places in the Bible. However, the Bible has an amazing amount of consistency when it is considered thematically and holistically. The New Testament letters, such as those written by Paul, Peter, and so forth expanded upon, but did not contradict, Christ’s commands. Also useful is the fact that prophesies about the End Times line up between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The themes of repentance, care for the poor, humility, sexual purity, and so forth were the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament albeit presented with different phrasing and parables.
The third step is to look at how well the Christian faith matches up with experience. Does the Christian view that Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Corinthinans 4:4) synch up with experience? Given that in the past century over 150 million died in wars or related violence, the fact that billions live in poverty and disease, that natural disasters are so common, that dictatorships and corrupt governments seem to spring up everywhere, I think that it is very reasonable to believe. How about the Christian view of human nature? Christians believe that human nature is essentially fallen and corrupt. This seems to be corroborated by real life experience (identity theft, gang violence, drug use, divorce, abuse, greed, etc.).
Finally, is there a good supply of archaeological and historical evidence to support the Christian claims? While there is no video footage of the feeding of the 5000 or of the resurrection, there are many extrabiblical sources from historical writers and from archaeological finds that can support Christian claims.
Have I presented a “slam-dunk” case for Christianity? Of course not! However, there have been many authors in recent past who have devoted books to this subject, and if you are truly open minded you may want to consider reading them.
Philosophy is the only side that attempts to remove preconceived notions of religions, not just Christianity. Fact of the matter is that no one can confirm, nor deny the existence of god. However, evidence is overwhelming that all religions contradict themselves in attempts to explain it all.
Religions are necessary to give those who choose not to deal with the fact that its quite possible that there is no reason why we are here.
Without going in to great research it is safe to say that all religions speak of an afterlife. Why do we want this afterlife so bad? because life is kind of tough for most people and it gives us a sense of relief that death is not the end and things will get better. Without an after life many would not be able to see a reason for living.
I don't think any Religion would explain him. Stories change over generations and they have been twisted and turned to misinterpret god, even if he does not exist.
It would not. If there is a God and he loves us so much, why is there Hell, sickness, sadness death. Gods loves us so much that he created hell just in case we don't love him back.
I dont think a God exist, especially the kind that is described in the bible but I am interested in the reasons religious people give for bealiving in him/it/her
Miracles. I have seen them and personally felt them, and science has nothing on it.
Christianity is the best explanation of God, because of the Bible. What other religious book predicted hundreds of years in advance of a man who was actually God, would be born in a particular city, be raised in a specific bloodline, die a particular death, and rise from the dead? No other religious book can say this or even come close. Besides, you have to consider the law of noncontradiction as well. If the Bible is true, than any religious book that contradicts it is false. At least 517 people saw Jesus die (1 Cor 15:4-8) as well as Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and Talmud. No other religious text states that Jesus died, therefore, due to the law of noncontradiction, Christianity is the only explanation of God.
So...if I told you that 517 people saw me out on a date with Heidi Klum, and nobody else was able to reproduce the story, what would you think exactly?
The trouble with this argument is that there is not a parallel here. When the Gospels and Epistles were written, those witnesses were still around and could have easily disputed the claim, they didn't which is very telling. In fact, Luke makes it a point to note in the opening of His gospel that he interviewed witnesses for his account. Read it for yourself, this sounds like a historical narrative to me.
Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
If it was 2 or 3 people, I would have doubts. But over 500? I find it hard that over 500 people would lie in a book that is surrounded by over 140 confirmed historical facts.
The book is surrounded by over 140 confirmed historical facts, doesn't mean that everything in the book is factual. You're using evidence that the bible contains facts to show that the bible is fact.
I make 100 statements. 9 of them are confirmed facts, so the others must be??
No amount of evidence can compel someone to truly believe in something. If you don't want to believe, that is solely up to you. I can't continue to have a discussion with someone who ignores over 140 facts. It was nice talking to you, I wish you the best.
Not really. It's great to know that you're willing to put your hands over your ears and shout 'I can't listen to logic!!!'. I have not disregarded any of these mentioned facts, only that you cannot use it to confirm stories, theories, analogies outside of this evidence. If you do not understand this, then God help you. Seriously, Christian, Muslim or Jewish... either way, you need serious medical help.
What, forget God, I need you to help me understand why you can't use facts to confirm stories. My daughter says to me "Daddy, I cleaned my room" I'll I got to do is look in her room, check the facts, to find out if the story is true or not. So please help me understand this.
Oh come on, are you serious. 140 confirmed historical facts lend credibility to the writings.
You're using evidence that the bible contains facts to show that the bible is fact. It's called corroborating evidence. If I say there are crackers in my pantry, all you got to do is look in the pantry to know whether or not I'm lying. And the more times my statement is confirmed, the more likely you are to trust me. This isn't rocket science, we do this stuff all the time without thinking.
See you're wrong again. This is the Bible. Hundreds of pages taking place over 3,000 years? and you're using 140 confirmed facts? lol? Firstly the earth is atleast 4 billion years old, the first civilisations developed atleast 10,000 years ago. That's 2 confirmed historical facts that devalues the Bible's credibility. That's just 2 off the top of my head.
I can give you 10 things wrong in the Bible... does that mean the whole of the Bible is wrong, or just those 10 things? What if I could give you 400? Does that mean the Bible is wrong? Sure, the Bible loses credibility, but I'm pretty sure there's more things that can't be proved or is factually incorrect than there is correct.
Show me these 140 confirmed historical facts.. I'll go through them and I bet there won't be anything in them that shows that the WHOLE OF THE BIBLE is correct.
This isn't an argument to debate whether or not the Bible is correct or not. It's just the argument of '140 confirmed historical facts' = 'Whole of Bible is correct' is bs.
God has spoken through two means; natural revelation (nature) and special revelation (The Bible) Since God can't lie it would stand to reason that those two revelations can't contradict each other. Therefore, if there is a contradiction between the two it would seem that the error of understanding would be on our part and not on God's, since we are prone to error and God is not. Somewhere we erred, either in our understanding of nature or our understanding of the Bible, But God is never wrong, nor does He mislead.
Oh ok. So when it says God created the world in 7 days.. we've misunderstood it and it actually means The universe is several billion years old and has lived many cycles etc. etc.
I think I'm beginning to understand you.
The whole basis of your argument is assuming the Bible is Gods word. Here's a secret. It is not. I hope now the world starts to make more sense.
Please notice the equivocation: the world in 7 days, means, The universe is several billion years old
Seeing that you went from talking about the world to the universe it would appear you aren't beginning to understand me: Just assuming things.
You assert that the Bible isn't Gods word. Could you tell me how you came to that conclusion and whether or not you agree that it is an accurate historical account.
You want to waste a whole post just for me to write the world AND UNIVERSE in 7 days. There. You happy now?
Bible is not God's word. It was written by a bunch of people. Jesus's life and stories were used to create this religion. I'm not going to go through the whole of the Bible pointing out every mistake/error or everything I don't agree with. From the start alone, I know the Bible is wrong.
But you do not have the testimony of 500 people, only Paul's testimony that 500 people witnessed it. To wit, my scenario did not start out "suppose 517 people told you...."
You are correct. I will give you Non-Christian sources as well that have given testimony of Jesus dying: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, and Mara Bar-Serapion. There are most likely more, although I haven't put in the time to research it. What exactly are you trying to point out in your scenario?
That your arguments so far - whether or not that which you intend to argue is right or wrong - are logically flawed (aside from the last one, which is more of a list than an argument supporting something I never even challenged, but at least they're firsthand accounts).
Your "law of noncontradiction" must necessarily begin with a presupposition that you yourself state: "If the Bible is true...". If it requires further explanation: It is pointless in argument to begin with the notion that you eventually intend to prove. To argue that Christianity is true because the Bible says so is akin to stating that water is wet because it is wet.
You go on to say that
"(You) find it hard that over 500 people would lie in a book that is surrounded by over 140 confirmed historical facts",
which, aside from being wholly based on an appeal to authority (formal logical fallacy), ignores the fact that none of those 500+ people authored any part of the Bible - it's essentially only a story about 500 people.
Believe me, I'm not here to argue theology. You guys have at it. But those arguments are seriously, seriously flawed.
law of noncontradiction- something can not be both true and not true at the same time
I am stating that the Bible is true concerning the death of Jesus. Other religious texts (Qur' an) state that Jesus never died. Because Jesus cannot both die and not die at the same time, one has to be wrong. It is my contention that Islam is incorrect about Jesus. I have provided historical evidence in the form of numerous eyewitness testimonies.
After I said if the Bible is true, I provided a statement about Jesus' death. Where is it under your quotation? Of course, if I quoted five words from you I could easily take anything you say completely out of context and say it was flawed as well. Don't get started with this nonsense.
I'm ignoring the fact about "those 500+ people?" Really? You are kidding, right? So Luke, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, and Peter never authored any part of the Bible? Seriously, I am wasting my time with this nonsense. It was nice talking to you too, and I wish you the best as well.
Okay. I'm wrong about, say, 15 of those people. The obvious ones, I admit it. But your argument was 500. You got time to give me the other 485?
And I'm sorry, but (admittedly, by my own judgement), I've been respectful to you. We're here to go back and forth. No need to throw up your hands, take the ball and go home because things aren't going exactly the way you want them to.
And come on, I didn't take you out of context. That was a pillar of your argument.
I have to agree, I'm a Christian because the evidence is so overwhelming as you point out in the few examples you list.
On the issue of Scripture; If something were inspired by God it should have His fingerprints all over it, as does what is referred to as the canon of scripture. Anything else that claims to be must give evidence of it's divine origin and nothing else does.
No other book in human history has been more carefully scrutinized and studied than The Bible. And it has stood up to the toughest criticism, it has outlasted every philosophy that has been raised against it. You might say it has stood the test of time and in my opinion, mere men don't write books like this.
The bible cannot be evidence of God's existence. For the evidence of God's existence precedes and supersedes the words of the bible. The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less.
Both you and your opponents irrationally think that the bible and its commentators are, in actuality, evidences of God's existence and non-existence, both camps argue from the absurd!
I guess that would hinge mainly on whether or not you believe Jesus to be the son of God and part of the trinity. I'd like to know specifically where you got the idea that the Bible only shows the history of one family. What do you mean by family?
The Bible is considered as the written word of God, so how could it not be evidence for his existence? It contains words that he himself spoke to prophets as well as Jesus speaking. Now, if you don't believe in the Bible or take it at face value with any presumed bias, then this discussion will lead nowhere. It won't be of any benefit to either of us.
First, I am not attempting to undermine your faith, I am attempting to expose the weaknesses of your arguments which you assert justify your faith. Let’s address these issues singularly.
#1 The Bible is considered as the written word of God, so how could it not be evidence for his existence?
The bible is not writ by God, it is writ by man. We look at and read the Bible and draw the inference that it is written by man. We also can validly infer that the Bible is a written work of man about man’s God. But, we cannot validly infer that the Bible itself is an evidence of God’s existence. Now, here is why: Man must be aware of the existence of God prior to a written record about God.
Allow me to further explain.
The Bible cannot prove the existence of God. In fact the Bible is written by men, to men, who already acknowledge the existence of God. This is an axiom of the Bible. The Bible is thus a consequence of man’s acknowledgement of God’s existence. So, the Bible is not an argument for or against God’s existence but is rather a written record that contains man’s testimony of man’s understanding of God, simplified. Moreover, the Bible is written for believers, it is not writ for non-believers. Our belief in the existence of God always precedes the Bible itself or else the Bible is the Author of our Faith instead of God or His only begotten Son.
Ask yourself one simple question: If Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses believed in God before the Bible existed, why do I think the Bible must prove the existence of God?
Now, let’s compare what I’ve stated to the scriptures.
Abraham believed God; did Abraham justify himself by the scriptures? No.
Moses was the servant of God; did Moses search the scriptures? No, for there were no scriptures.
Finally, the Bible is for they who believe, it is not an argument for they who believe not. A man can take consolation by the contents of Bible, but the only reason a man can do such is because a man’s Faith is not of the Bible but of God.
Conclusion: The belief that God exists precedes both the relevancy and irrelevancy of the Bible; the Bible cannot be the cause of belief or disbelief.
The first part doesn't make much sense to me. You say you are not trying to undermine my faith, yet what exactly are you trying to do by proving my arguments are weak?
---
It is inspired by God. That is, God gave man the information, and they wrote it in their own certain perspective. To say that it is man's god is untrue, the Biblical God is supernatural. Man did not invent God. He has always existed.
---
I see your point about the Bible. That does not mean though that the Bible does not provide arguments for the existence of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 states that God has "set eternity in the hearts of men." Hebrews 11:6 says that we have to accept that God exists by faith. It makes an argument in Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-22 that the vastness of the universe, the beauty of a sunset, etc. points to God.
---
What you are saying is true. I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by solely using the Bible, for it states that you need faith as well. Whether or not you have that faith is dependent on the individual. You can either choose to believe or not. You have free will.
The first part doesn't make much sense to me. You say you are not trying to undermine my faith, yet what exactly are you trying to do by proving my arguments are weak?
Explanation:
I am not attempting to undermine your faith, but rather put a rock foundation in lieu of the sand under your faith. Or, more specifically, inform you that there is a better foundation for your faith! Don’t take offence, for none offence is intended.
It is inspired by God. That is, God gave man the information, and they wrote it in their own certain perspective. To say that it is man's god is untrue, the Biblical God is supernatural. Man did not invent God. He has always existed.
God commanded Moses and the prophets to write these words…. Much of what you call scripture is the consequence of God’s command to write; you can say it is the fruit of obedience free from inspiration. It appears that the Almighty doesn’t rely upon inspiration. ( I am fully aware of the verse in the New Testament that reads: All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is….)
To say that it is man's god is untrue,
That is false, for it is written: ‘I am the Lord thy God,….—Exodus The Lord is declaring himself the God of some men, Israelites.
the Biblical God is supernatural
We are only cognizant of God’s existence by natural means, and therefore we are unaware of the supernatural qualities that lie beyond our scope of natural understanding. As it is written: God is spirit, and they who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and truth…--Jesus
Jesus is not asserting that we have a supernatural ability to worship a supernatural God; he is affirming that we have the natural ability to worship a spirit for the spirit is natural.
Man did not invent God. He has always existed.
Certainly, I have not indicated otherwise!
Whether or not you have that faith is dependent on the individual. You can either choose to believe or not. You have free will.
Completely false!
What you are asserting lies outside the scope of this debate. Would you care to discuss those matters independently of the current debate?
Oops, I forgot!
I see your point about the Bible. That does not mean though that the Bible does not provide arguments for the existence of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 states that God has "set eternity in the hearts of men." Hebrews 11:6 says that we have to accept that God exists by faith. It makes an argument in Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-22 that the vastness of the universe, the beauty of a sunset, etc. points to God.
What you are submitting for evidence is not evidence for your position. The Bible is speaking of evidence that is not biblical. The Bible is attesting to evidence of God’s existence by pointing to things that are not written. Your Faith is an evidence of God’s existence, the bible speaks of your faith, but the bible itself is nothing more or less than a written word about your faith.
Consider the following:
In Genesis 1:1 it is written: God created the Heaven and the Earth.
Now, which is evidence of God’s creations: the Bible, or the creations themselves? The bible is speaking the truth, but the truth it speaks of is known apart from the Bible itself. You must first believe that God created heaven and Earth before you can accept that the words of Bible are not false.
Okay, i'll try not to look at it with offense. Your bold has me all screwed up. :/ I can't tell whether I am talking or you are. Can you just like put mine in italics or something?
---
That is false, for it is written:
Like I have stated previously, God existed before the universe was even made. Yes, he was originally the God of the Israelites in the Old Testament, but you are forgetting about Paul's ministry. Now Christianity is available to both Jew and Gentile (non-Jew).
---
cognizant of God’s existence by natural means
So what are miracles then? We are aware of the supernatural qualities he possesses, because he gives some to us in 1 Corinthians 12. Do you believe in tongues and miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God, according to the trinity?
---
lies outside the scope of this debate
Yes, I agree that it does. Maybe during a future time we could debate this.
---
I'm not really understanding your point of view. What exactly are you trying to say? That the Bible contains no evidence of God? The Bible discusses topics that can be used to prove the existence of God. There are some topics that require faith, such as the verse you mentioned. Can I provide rigorous proof that God created the heavens and the earth? No, I cannot. I have faith in the Bible that what it is saying is true. Therefore, I am using the Bible as an argument for the existence of God. I have to believe that what the Bible is saying is true before I can believe that God created the heavens and the earth. If you never looked at the Bible before, what would be your view on the universe? You would believe that some natural process created it. Yet, when you read the Bible and believe what it says, you instead come to the conclusion that no, God created the heavens and the earth, not natural processes. Does this make sense?
So what are miracles then? We are aware of the supernatural qualities he possesses, because he gives some to us in 1 Corinthians 12. Do you believe in tongues and miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God, according to the trinity?
I do not even believe in prayer. However, I believe in a God who answers my prayers according to His will.
Before we continue this discussion you must know that I once believed much as do you. However in due time, after much research, I now know what is more worthy of Faith.
I’ll create a private debate for us to continue this discussion; unless of course you are not interested in a private debate. What say you?
Personally, I don't feel as though it would benefit either of us. You do not believe in prayer and I respect your position. If that is the view you hold then so be it. No matter what I say will change that view, and vice versa. If you feel though as a debate may be beneficial to you, then I will go ahead with it. I will say that we have fundamental differences of opinion on this topic, and I do not believe we can come to the same conclusion no matter what each of us says.
And help me with this, let's say I hear an audible voice from above me, it addresses me by name, tells me what I was doing prior, blinds me and knocks me to the ground. Would it be reasonable for me at this point to consider this evidence of God's existence?
So if a phenomenon bears the marks of the divine, would it be reasonable to consider this evidence of God's existence?
Finally, a conclusion without supporting premises is not an argument, it's an assertion. So if you would, please give some supporting premises in order that I might have reason to believe the following assertion of yours, because without reasons I have no reason to believe you.
You assert: The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less.
what would be according to you? I don’t deny the existence of God! (I’ll answer your question if it becomes necessary.)
And help me with this, let's say I hear an audible voice from above me, it addresses me by name, tells me what I was doing prior, blinds me and knocks me to the ground. Would it be reasonable for me at this point to consider this evidence of God's existence?
The apostle Paul never used his experience of God as an argument for God’s existence. However, Paul (Saul at the time) did use his experience (the road to Damascus) as a testimony of how he had persecuted the disciples of the Lord, contrary to the will of God. The scriptures do not support an assertion that Paul attempted to prove the existence of God; and as far as Paul’s belief in God’s existence, he believed well before his conversion.
So if a phenomenon bears the marks of the divine, would it be reasonable to consider this evidence of God's existence? The belief in God’s existence is rooted within man’s disposition, belief is not a consequence of a single experience. Consider Moses as an example. Moses must necessarily believe that God exists prior to the knowledge that God’s existence can be manifested by a burning bush. Must I present an argument to prove my conclusion?
Finally, a conclusion without supporting premises is not an argument, it's an assertion. So if you would, please give some supporting premises in order that I might have reason to believe the following assertion of yours, because without reasons I have no reason to believe you.
You assert: The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less.
What say you ?
It is called an Axiom.
Axiom: a statement that needs no proof because its truth is obvious.
I recommend that you seriously consider that axiom before you attempt a denial of the axiom
OK, I agree with you on one level and disagree on another. I understand the point you are making. It is the same one as Paul's argument in Romans 1. I would agree that all men know that there is a God but that they suppress that truth. However I take exception with you when you say that the Bible cannot be evidence of God's existence. I understand what you're driving at with that statement but you undercut and deny an argument that Paul makes latter. It was Paul's argument in Romans 10:17and the testimony of the saints down through the ages that faith comes by hearing the word of God; and that faith is a gift of God, Ephesians 2:8
So in my estimation to say that The Bible cannot be evidence of God's existence is a bit misleading. It would be better to say that the Bible can be used as evidence for God's existence, because that has certainly been the case. When you read through the book of Acts you will see examples of this all over. Or consider that it was Paul's custom to go into synagogues and reason with them from the scriptures. And this has been the testimony of the Saints through the ages and my own. See I suppressed the truth of God for the first half of my life but as the evidence mounted it became harder and harder to deny His reality. Until one day God by the spirit took out my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh; creating faith in me through His word. I can never suppress that truth again because the evidence is to overwhelming. So the objective that is being argued for is to turn from idols to the true and living God. And I would agree with you that the evidence and argument are not of God's existence but for faith in the true God
Now it appears you missed my point in those two examples I gave contrary to your assertion, so Ill say it plainly. A phenomenon (an argument,experience, event, book, testimony etc etc) most certainly can be used to confirm or deny a previously held conviction. We do this all the time, in fact what you wrote is a case in point. It is an argument you put forth to give evidence to the contrary of my position. And this is exactly what the Bible does, it argues to give evidence to the contrary and to the affirmative to a whole host of things. It goes something like this: because of "A" I'm more convinced that "X" is true
Finally, I'm not an idiot and your assertion isn't axiomatic. There are a lot of questions I could ask to get under that statement, so it most certainly is not a bedrock truth. For example: what do you mean by it's God do you mean there are many gods and this is just one of them or do you mean there are no gods and this is just one they made up. And what do you mean by the history of one family Because at minimum there were twelve tribes and a whole lot of other people referred to. But do you mean that in the sense that we are all descendants of Adam, but even in that case scripture follows the line of two descendants; The seed of the serpent and the seed of promise. So I ask, what are you referring to?
So I deny that the Bible cannot be evidence of God's existence. The statement is false and misleading. I affirm that the Bible can and has been used as evidence for God's existence.
And the statement: The bible is only a written record of some of the history of one family and its God, no more no less. Is false and misleading. I affirm that it is a written record of real history at minimum but acknowledge that it is much more. And I would further argue that it uses this history to argue for the affirmation of it's other claims.
I can settle our debate rather simply though. And coincidently, your response will either affirm or deny my axiom: “The bible is not evidence of God's existence.” (Logical Form)
You believe the bible is evidence of God’s existence; so then, who or what is the cause of your belief in God’s existence?
Let’s settle this question before we address the other questions.
how did you see and feel those miracles? colors, sensations or what ?
if you saw/felt miracles - then you did so with your senses - now everything your senses can see/smeel/feal/hear etc, scientist have tools to measure - or they can at least measure your brain while it is processing those sensations
By saying that the Bible predicted the coming of Chirst and how he died a "particular" death - I am assuming you mean that the old testament gives that prediction - if that is what you mean then that is not true - it doesnt give specifics on the coming Messiah, especially not about the particularities of his death
If you are on the other hand talking about the new testament than you should know that the oldest scriptures found on Jesus are written 150 years after his supposed death
about your law of contradiction you loose me at the start because you start by assuming (without proof - as religious people tend to do) that it is true and therfore other books cant be
And remember, the statement of the fact that a number of people saw Jesus die is made by people writing about the subject at least 150 years after the fact. Given that they didnt have cameras in those days - how sure do you think they can be?
You're simply mistaken about your assessment of scripture both the Old and New.
You claim the Old Testament doesn't give specifics on the coming Messiah, especially not about the particularities of his death. Then please tell me what Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are referring to? There are a whole lot more than these if you'd take the time to read the Old Testament.
On your assertion on the dating of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul was killed around A.D. 60 so how did he write his letters 90 yrs after his death? Second of all the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. One would think that such a significant event for the Jews would be recorded in these writings if it had already happened. It's absence is strong evidence for an early date of these writings.
On assuming without proof, I think you are mistaken. It's because of the evidence that I'm persuaded.
Your assertion that nobody can know things without cameras is just silly, By your logic we would have to throw out all we know about history prior to cameras. But cameras aren't the only way we know what happened in the past. There is a whole field of science known as Archaeology. There are over 500 (if I remember correctly) separate archaeological sites that confirm facts in the Bible. And not to mention you have to deal with the nation of Israel and it's history. Here is a good site for further research if you are interested: http://www.bib-arch.org/
So simple assertions like yours are not very persuasive to those who have done their homework. So, I would say that because you don't know of any good evidence for the reliability of Scripture doesn't mean there isn't any. I've included a link to a very good source if you are interested in knowing how the Canon of Scripture came to be, so check it out.
I'm not going to get too far into this, you asked the question and I answered it. Whether or not you believe in miracles is totally dependent on you. I'll tell you this, the miracles that I have seen are of a medical nature, and I have felt them as well. Say, for instance, you have a migraine, and all of the sudden it just goes away in a split second without any medication or anything else whatsoever. I am just using migraines as an example.
Yes, the Old Testament does give the prediction. Isiah 7:14, Isiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9, Psalm 22:16-18, Isiah 53:3-7, Isiah 50:6, and Zechariah 12:10 just to name a few. Provide proof that shows the Old Testament does not give specifics about Jesus.
I provided proof for the law by describing the death of Jesus and how people historically saw it. You still have not shown proof that all 517 people were lying.
LOL! The Vedas predicted Abraham, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha and many more. The Koran (I've heard) has had several prophecies fulfilled and I'm sure many religions have.
BTW you're using the Bible to justift..... the Bible....
Really? The Vedas predicted that Jesus came from the bloodline of David? Where specifically does it say that? I'm anxious to know. We are talking about Jesus by the way, not Brahman, Shiva, or Vishnu.
Also none of those sources can be verified by historical sources. Only the Bible is set in the context of real human history. It's not once upon a time, it's more like There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea that's sounds like a historical narrative to me.
You're right, lol. But that's because of who and where you are. You talk about what you know, what is around you and what affects you... and I'm pretty sure hinduism comes into none of the above...
I've made a thread about it anyway so criticise all you please.
Thank you for showing how ignorant you are. Not only does it show how you haven't even read the vedas, or that you think you know how they're written, but also that depending on the style of their writing (which it isn't even similar to) you can deduce whether it is fact or fiction. Great. Really great. You have to understand the concept of mythology before you can even begin to argue the realism of the vedas. Bloody amazing. If only I could downvote you to -1,00000 or something and that wouldn't even be close to your retardidness.
I am asking a simple question. Where specifically in the Vedas does it say that Jesus is from the bloodline of David, as predicted hundreds of years ago in the Bible? You inferred that it does, and I want to know where it is. Calling me ignorant and retarded doesn't answer the question.
If you can see the post and read it, then you'll see i wasn't talking to you. DUH. I'm not gonna answer it until you grow up answer my arguments. Plus you can find it yourself. Google it.
Insult is not an argument, it's the failure of one. And conclusions without premises to support them are just assertions. And if you give me no reasons for your assertion, I have no reason to believe you. It's that simple. This is a place for debating and that requires sound arguments, not bold assertions.
This is a place for debating and that requires sound arguments, not bold assertions.
Also none of those sources can be verified by historical sources. Only the Bible is set in the context of real human history. It's not once upon a time, it's more like There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea that's sounds like a historical narrative to me.
wait sorry... what was that???.... NOT bold assertions?
Can you do this for me. Everytime you write something... take a step back, re-read it and see how it might sound to others. I'm on your side here. Maybe you're just coming off wrong.. I don't know.
I was making the point that a lot of what gets said is just assertions without supporting arguments. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought when you argue you gave reasons for your conclusions.. So I'm saying that when you argue I'm assuming you are trying to persuade me of your view. But if you offer me no reasons why I should believe you, I have no reason to. That's all :)
Ok that's fair I haven't given any sources. You can still look it up yourself right? Even though I've stated why.
However it was this retardidness :
Also none of those sources can be verified by historical sources. Only the Bible is set in the context of real human history. It's not once upon a time, it's more like There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea that's sounds like a historical narrative to me.
I'll break it down bit by bit.
Also none of those sources can be verified by historical sources
Yes they can and they have. In fact they (probably) have MORE than 140 (lol) historically confirmed evidences (that is an asumption).
Only the Bible is set in the context of real human history
ALL religious books and scriptures are set in the context of real human history. I don't tihnk you have a clue of what you're talking about, when it comes to timelines the Vedas are much more accurate than the Bible.
It's not once upon a time, it's more like There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea
Here is a retarded assumption that the Vedas are written like Star Wars and the Bible was written like Robin Hood. You don't have a clue do you. (note that there isn't a question mark)
that's sounds like a historical narrative to me.
OK. Now it makes sense. Whether or not you're right about 'how they're written'.. aslong as THEY SOUND LIKE they are historical narratives.. it means THEY ARE. Great to know that the Great Biblical Argument is that it sounds like it's true.
Seeing that I'm so retarded, maybe you could help me understand somethings and help me understand what you do.
You stated: ALL religious books and scriptures are set in the context of real human history
Apart from the Bible, can you cite one religious text that is set in the context of real history and give an example?
Also please help me understand this comment of yours, I'm confused about it.
as long as THEY SOUND LIKE they are historical narratives.. it means THEY ARE.
If I'm reading something and it appears to be a historical account based upon it's form. why would I be wrong to assume that it is a historical account? It would seem to me that the style of writing would be determined by what is written and I'm simply observing it's realty and not determining it.
So is this statement an affirmation or a denial? Was it meant to be an insult? Why did you use it in your argument?
See I'm confused because it appears as a statement against my view, but it is something you practice. Let me explain. You read my arguments and say; that sounds like an argument for Christianity, therefore they are arguments for Christianity. So why is it OK for you to make these assessments and not me? Please help clarify this for me.
Furthermore, how did you get from; that sounds like it's a historical narrative to that sounds like it's true I don't see the logical connection. Maybe you could expand on this for me, since I'm such a retard :)
Apart from the Bible, can you cite one religious text that is set in the context of real history and give an example?
The Dhammapada (a.k.a. The Teachings of the Buddha). The Avesta of Zoroaster. The Five Classics of Confucianism. The Tao Te Ching. The Koran.
Huh, wow, I came up with five "religious texts that are set in the context of real history" just off the top of my head (and that's counting the Five Classics as one text).
Examples are plentiful. Pick up any of the above-listed books and read it.
Well, I guess that would've answered my question If you had not redefined it. So let me define what I mean by historical context. God used real human events to communicate something about Himself. For example; God used a real man(Joesph), who lived in a real place during a real time to bring a real family of people into a real land(Egypt) Then God used a real man (Moses), who lived in a real place during a real time to bring a real group of people (Israel) out of a real land(Egypt) Now the Bible makes several types of claims; historical claims and spiritual claims. So the question is, how can I verify or falsify these claims? Or how do I prove them? The historical claims are easy, archeology. But the spiritual a little harder. But as it turns out these historical claims, that the Bible makes, are true, it can be validated. And these events are hard to account for apart from divine intervention; The logical conclusion is, God did this. And therefore I think it is reasonable to trust it's spiritual claims since I can trust it's historical claims. So I can point to things the God of the Bible actually did, I can't do that with the god of any other religion. One God acts in history, the others don't. Which one do you think I'm more inclined to believe actually exist?
These other books you cite are very hard to verify or falsify the truthfulness of their spiritual claims since the are not set in the context of something that can be verified or falsified. From what I've read they simply make claims about spiritual things without supporting evidence, they are more like assertions rather than arguments. They are statements like, God is not personal in nature or God is everything. Whereas Christianity is more like God did this among us, therefore God is like this.
So what I'm looking for isn't just actual things or events. What I'm looking for is, God did this among us. And then I need to be able to go backwards to see if there were actually such people and places.
And just for the record I'm not saying that other religious writings can't make true statements, They can and do. My dispute is with the claims they make about spiritual things i.e. the nature of God. and therefore my question is how do you verify or falsify these claims. And in my estimation only Christianity provides a context in which they can be tested. I might be mistaken, but I have yet to see anything to the contrary. And the reason I ask this question is because all religions define the nature of God differently. And logic tells me they can't all be true, the law on non-contradiction. Christianity claims God is a trinity, all other religions deny this. So either He is or He isn't. So I ask, how do you know?
So I would like to see a spiritual claim from another religious source that can be verified or falsified, that's what I'm looking for. Give me an example were a god from another religion acted in real human history.
I do believe I gave you examples of religious figures akin to Jesus who lived and acted in human history. The Buddha, Zoroaster, and Mohammed are similar figures in terms of their role within their respective faiths. They are not "gods" in that none of their religions espouse Christian notions about the trinity or god-made-flesh; although the Romans and Egyptians certainly did believe that their rulers were gods-made-flesh and they too lived and acted in human history, and similarly Yahweh or god-the-father has never incarnated as such within the Judeo-Christian mythos. So whether or not a religion characterizes its central prophet-figure as a "god" is not at all dispositive, since these faiths each conceptualize "god" somewhat differently. You wanted examples of principle religious figures who lived and acted in human history, and I've given you a list of 'em.
But here's the kicker: unlike Christianity, my faith teaches that it is absolutely good and proper for there to be many systems of religious-mythical belief. How could a man living in India in the 6th century B.C. possibly understand "god" in the same way that a woman living in 16th-century Italy would, or the same way a person living in modern-day Haiti would? Their worldviews and life experiences are completely different. It would make complete sense for "god" to present himself / herself / themselves in many names and guises if "god" wanted to be understood. On the other hand, it would make no sense for "god" to stay silent for tens of thousands of years and then appear in a very limited fashion to a couple hundred desert-dwellers on the West Asian penninsula in the first millenium B.C., looking exactly the way that said desert-dwellers would want and expect their god to look, and not communicate at all to the rest of the people who lived throughout the course of human history.
Not really. The logical conclusion is "this event of great import happened to a bunch of primitive ancient people and they attributed it to their god."
The historical claims are easy, archeology.
And the fact that ancient people sometimes recorded factual events with accuracy neither proves nor disproves the idea that the religious-mythological explanations they slapped on those events are objectively "true."
Plus, as another poster has already noted, the Vedas are, by-and-large, more accurate than the Bible when it comes to recounting historical events. Ergo, by your logic, the theology of the Vedas is more likely to be correct than the theology of the Bible.
these events are hard to account for apart from divine intervention
Not really. Manna, for example, is the secretion of migrating locusts and they nest in that patch of desert. Locusts do not require divine intervention to nest; that's a normal part of their life cycle. You can also see the link for explanations of how the ten plagues can be attributed to the effects of severe weather. A good many biblical "miracles" have perfectly scientific explanations; whereas other unverifiable "miracles" in the Bible are generally too preposterous to be believed at face value, and also bear resounding similarities to the symbology and myth of other local West Asian peoples. The great likelihood is that most of these latter stories, like many parts of the Judeo-Christian faith, were simply imports from other neighboring cultures that were ultimately assimilated into Jewish (and later Christian) lore.
I can point to things the God of the Bible actually did, I can't do that with the god of any other religion.
Of course you could, if you'd be bothered to learn even the tiniest bit about other religions (and it's your deliberate ignorance about other religions that's driving me bloody mad). Pretty much all religions attribute miracles to their gods, and pretty much all religious texts give the life stories of their major religious figures, and pretty much all religious texts make reference to relevant historical events.
These other books you cite are very hard to verify or falsify the truthfulness of their spiritual claims since the are not set in the context of something that can be verified or falsified
How is "the Buddha lived, learned this, did this, taught this" any harder to verify than "Jesus lived, taught this, did this"? Answer: it's not. Ditto for Zoroaster and Mohammed, Confucius and Lao-Tse. And if it's verified historical events attributed in a sacred text to the intervention of a deity that you want, well hey, the Rig Veda is chock full of 'em.
These books aren't any more or less "hard to verify or falsify" than your Bible. You've just never read any sacred text except your own (if that).
What I'm looking for is, God did this among us.
And what I'm telling you is, any sacred text in just about any religion will include examples of "god did this among us." Go open any one of them to any page and you will most likely find "god did this among us" in whatever form "god" is understood by that religion.
Christianity claims God is a trinity, all other religions deny this. So either He is or He isn't.
And you've offered no proof at all of the trinity. Christianity's best theologians have, in 2000 years, continued to fail to conclusively prove a triune divine. So where does that leave the verifiability of your claims?
My point is, there's nothing about Christianity or its holy book that is any more or less objectively verifiable than the contents of most other holy books. You choose to believe the Christian holy book, and while I think that's rather misguided, it's totally your choice. But you have no proof of the claims of the Christian holy book beyond those that can be similarly claimed by nearly any holy book.
And if you would bother to actually learn anything at all about the other religions you so lightly dismiss, you would know that, and you wouldn't make such foolish claims about your own religion. You would also, incidentally, be in a better position to craft a decent argument if you were actually aware of objective facts, like what so-and-so's holy book contains or how the development of the Judeo-Christian mythos is situated in reference to the cultures of its early contemporaries.
So let me see if i understand you correctly, all religious books are set in a historical context and all the spiritual claims of those writings are myth. Is that correct?
But maybe it's difficult for you to do that (with being a retard and all ;)) so I gave some extra time to it. Obviously not all of those should be taken seriously (i.e. scientology) but most should.
See you got two things wrong.
1. It is NOT written like that.. so that automatically means you're wrong
2. It doesn't matter HOW you paint a picture. It matters what the picture is. You're basing assumptions on how the picture is painted. EVEN though your assumption on how its painted is completely wrong anyway.
If I'm reading something and it appears to be a historical account based upon it's form. why would I be wrong to assume that it is a historical account? It would seem to me that the style of writing would be determined by what is written and I'm simply observing it's realty and not determining it.
Let me correct you
If I'm reading something and it appears to be a historical account based upon it's form why would I be wrong to assume that is a historical account? However I haven't not read that something which is why I should not assume whether or not it is a historical account. Secondly I should not be reading at what it appears to be, but reading at what it is. It would seem to me that the style of writing SHOULD be determined by what's written, but I've simple GUESSED what the scriptures are, not determined it.
The worst part is you still don't understand. Then again, retards don't understand they're retarded.
See I'm confused because it appears as a statement against my view, but it is something you practice. Let me explain. You read my arguments and say; that sounds like an argument for Christianity, therefore they are arguments for Christianity. So why is it OK for you to make these assessments and not me? Please help clarify this for me.
OHHH!! and you know this do you?!?
LMFAOROFLCOPTER. YOU KNOW THAT I READ YOUR ARGUMENTS AND SAY 'THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN (etc.)!!!!!. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sorry about that. I know it was childish... but I just want you to know how I feel. I just find it amazing. You're a superhuman. You can look into my head!.
Just to correct you however...... no. I don't base it on what is SOUNDS like. only what it is. Many times I've told you that what you've said isn't really an argument for Christianity even though it SOUNDS like it is.
tbh no matter how many times I say I'm not going to keep arguing if you continue your retard streak.. I still have. So I won't really say it.. cause I can't keep my word. I just have to keep replying to see your next reply. lol. It's like a drug.
I claimed the the Bible is in fact written as a historical narrative, How did you falsify my claim?
And let me see if I understand you correctly; the way you paint a picture has no bearing on the outcome of that picture, thanks, that's as clear as mud. So I would be safe to assume that although your response sounds like a argument and looks like an argument, it really isn't. Your response is really a poetic love song telling the tell of tragic love and it's just fiction, how nice :)
And what exactly have I said that is not an argument for Christianity and how did you demonstrate that it wasn't. Or did you just assume it wasn't and then proceed to demonstrate that it wasn't (circular reasoning) Your mental prowess is stellar, whoops sorry, I know ad hominem is not an argument, it's the failure to provide one :)
And please be sure to take a deep breath; I don't want to call 911 if you hyperventilate. :)
I didn't falsify your claim retard. I said it's not the only historical narrative. How do you not get that? I also said that it doesn't matter if it's written AS a historical narrative. Doesn't mean SHIT. What matters is what is written.
You've got a really twisted little head up there. There's something between your eyes and your brain that twists the words that you read.
Read the following VERY F*CKING CAREFULLY
'It doesn't matter HOW you paint a picture. It matters what the picture is. You're basing assumptions on how the picture is painted. EVEN though your assumption on how its painted is completely wrong anyway.'
Did I say whether or not how you paint a picture bears the outcome? NO
Did I even mention it? NO
So why do you even bring it up as if I mentioned it? You're retarded.
SO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
Let me make this as clear as possible.
Have you ever read the Vedas? NO
Do you know 'HOW' they are written? NO
Does that mean you know whether it is 'once upon a time' or not? NO
However even if it 'once upon a time' - Remember this is 'IF' it's written like that. Which it's not.
Does that make a difference to the story? NO
Isn't the content important and not how it is told? YES
Does this conclude that what you said is retarded? YES
Sometime people who aren't retards, say retarded things. However you have continously twisted things in that nutcase of a brain of yours. Does this conclude you are a retard? YES.
If God would/does exist, Why would Christianity be the best explanation of his being
What do you do when you have a difficult question about an area you don't have a lot of knowledge of? Well, you ask an expert in the field, right? But you must ask first: Does the person you go to have the qualifications to answer the question well?
So simply put, I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was. He did say He was the truth and He sure gave evidence that He knew what He was talking about.
But I can already hear the objections about the Bible and it's reliability. Even if all the claims of the Bible being copied from other religions are true. it doesn't disprove the Bible. Just because the first is a myth doesn't mean the second is also (non-sequitur) And you don't start with the assumption that the Bible is myth and the proceed to give evidence that it is myth (circular reasoning) No serious scholar disputes the historical reliability of the New Testament. If one is going to dispute the New Testament they have to give evidence of specific discrepancies in the historical evidence for Jesus. Not by citing other sources as alternate explanations, but by addressing the evidence of this specific account. And going after the character of Christians and the Apostles is to commit two fallacies depending on the argument used; ad hominem and genetic. It tells us something about these people but nothing about Christianity. It doesn't address the specific claims of Christianity.
Here is a debate between Michael Shermer and Ben Witherington III on the question: Is The Bible Bogus?
And please don't commit the genetic fallacy here by dismissing this because there are Christians in it and moderating it. Deal with the evidence, not the people.
When I look out into the world I see a world of incredible design, I see a universe finely tuned to make life on earth possible, I see a universe governed by law and order and I see a world that is very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I see an ecosystem so well thought out that life thrives in abundance. I see a staggering diversity in the design of living creatures; the engineering to make some of these creatures just function is mind blowing. Not to mention what it takes to write the blueprints for all these creatures in DNA. I marvel that after thousands of years of scientific inquiry, we haven't even begun to fully understand the human body; I can't even begin to imagine what you would have to know about chemistry in order to make a human being or any other living creature.
Then I find myself thinking, reasoning, feeling, loving, willing, desiring, assessing, dreaming, planing, designing, creating, building, etc. etc. I'm staggered by the capabilities and faculties of the human mind. Psychology and Sociology have not even come close to understanding all the complexities of the human mind. It is staggering to think about the life of the mind and the reality that it ponders itself. I have to ask: from where do all these things come that I see and experience. What would be an adequate explanation for their existence?
And then I think of the universe we find ourselves in. Science tells us that it had a beginning. Then I wonder, if ever there was a time when there was nothing, then we would still have nothing. So why is there something instead of nothing?
Something must exist outside of the physical world that is eternal and has the power of being in itself; it must be self existent.
So when I examine my world I have to ask: What is a sufficient cause for the effect I see? Are the laws of nature adequate to explain it or does the effect I see require the action of intelligent agent? Is what I see something that comes from matter or something that is forced on matter? Is it something that works from the inside outward or is it something that happens from the outside unto the object? I'm compelled by the evidence that it is the latter; an intelligent agent working from the outside to create and cause the effects we see.
Then my next question becomes who did it? By my observation this being would have to be self existent, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, and real. This being must be moral, good, just, loving, creative, rational, extremely intelligent, wise and caring. And it would have to exist independently of me since my being would be derived from it.
When I consider all the worldviews (an explanation of the world) I find only one that stands in a class by itself. Only Christianity has the explanatory power and scope to adequately explain the world we live in. Nothing else even comes close to accounting for everything we find in our world, nothing. I say that because all the things I listed above have to be accounted for and I've just scratched the surface of reality, there is a whole lot more that needs to be accounted for. The scope of reality is massive and it takes a very comprehensive explanation to account for it's many facets. And I have yet to see one as comprehensive as Christianity.
This is only a synopsis of this view. If you would like a further explanation of this view please consider reading the book I've linked.
So your reason for belief is that the universe is incredibly complex, therefor it must have a creator? This can be a convincing argument on the surface, but once you analyze it closely, it doesn't really hold up.
I could also argue that, even if true, that doesn't really mean that Christianity is the only explanation for this. It certainly is not the only religion that posits the existence of an intelligent designer for the universe.
And out of curiosity, what is it about the world that makes you think that if there is a creator, that they are just, moral, and good?
A question to which God is the most plausible answer. Thus far, I have never run across something like that. Certainly, there are questions which, as of yet, have no definite answer, such as how exactly we got here. But a) that doesn't mean we will never know, and b) that doesn't mean one should jump to the conclusion of God.
OK let me toss one at ya and see if you can come up with a more plausible answer than a self-existing, omnipresent, omniscient and Omnipotent being who exist outside of and independent of time and space. And the existence of all things are contingent upon His being so that without Him nothing would be. A being who has the power of being in and of Himself and is not dependent on or derived from anything and above all is immutable and indivisible in His nature and essence.
Why Is there something instead of nothing?
What say you ?
I'll wait till you come up with a more reasonable conclusion? Tick tock tick tock :)
I don't know. We all have our theories and beliefs, but nobody knows. Not even you, sorry.
Human knowledge is not unlimited but it expands every day. Just because no one has the answer to the origins of the universe now doesn't mean they never will.
People in ancient Egypt used to believe Ra was responsible for guiding the sun across the sky and protecting it from monsters every night. They believed in Ra with the same faith and confidence that you believe in God today. If someone had asked them, 'if not Ra, then how does the sun rise and set?', they would not have had an answer. Does that mean it could only be Ra? No, it means they didn't understand the way the Solar system moved, and so they made up an answer. Do you see the parallel here?
PS: Smugness is not an effective tool for proving your point.
Thanks, that's a very intellectually satisfying answer. Amazing what you know and don't know. Reality is that we do know the answer to the question and we do know the origins of the universe: we just don't like the answer. So we say, ha! who knows , but I bet I can make up a really good sounding answer FYI no one has ever pulled one over on God.
The difference between Jesus and Ra; Jesus was a real man, Ra wasn't. So no parallel and definitely not the same faith and confidence that they had.
There is no shame in admitting that we lack certain knowledge.
The only proof you have to the origins of the universe is in an old book that was filtered through the limited understanding of the people it was written by, then translated and picked over many times over the centuries. You can chose to believe it but don't expect to hold it up as proof and be taken seriously outside your own religion.
You say that we know the answer but we just don't like it, and I am assuming you are referring to the idea that God created the universe. That is an idea that wraps everything up fairly nicely and offers answers to pretty much everything; what's not to like about it? Unfortunately, for me, it's not a question of what I'd like to believe, it's a question of what is believable. I would just love to believe there is an omnipotent parent figure watching out for me, forgiving me when I make mistakes, and holding a place for me in the afterlife, but I just can't.
The truth is we do not yet know the answer to that question, and some people get scared and can't accept that, so they look to religion for comfort.
"Reality is that we do know the answer to the question and we do know the origins of the universe: we just don't like the answer. So we say, ha! who knows , but I bet I can make up a really good sounding answer"
aw come on jstantall..... try answering other people's questions and directly responding to points they bring up. It would be so interesting. Are you just here to propagandize and proselytize?
In no part of your post show how CHRISTIANITY would be the true religion... apart from your subjective views on Christianity.
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing.. but when you say only Christianity has the explanations and nothing else even comes close etc.... it would be nice to give some facts to back this up..
OK please tell me of one worldview that gives an adequate explanation for the existence of evil. Or how about the question, why is there something instead of nothing? If you've got a better explanation than Christianity,I'd love to hear it.
And I'd did cite a source, it would do you well to take the time and read it. Because it answers your objection quite adequately.
Firstly your source is an amazon page on a book. How am I going to be able to read it?? I definately ain't going to buy it.
ALL religions give a more than adequate explanation for the existance of evil. Lord of the Rings gives a better one imo than the Bible. LOL!.(Yes, I know it is based on the Bible) All religions answer ALL the questions Christianity does. its YOUR OPINION that Christianity offers the best answers, but you haven't even heard the other answers, specially from a non-christian source.
Oh yeah silly stupid me, what was I thinking you are so right. Ha it was all an illusion after all, I really did grow up in Christian home and live a sheltered life and I know nothing else. Thanks for the update.
ps check the library.
Also, name one religion that gives a more than adequate explanation for the existence of evil.
Here's a question for a religion of your choice; from where does the sense of "oughtness" come
Final thought, 10 out of 10 doctors agree that giving a person in diabetic shock an insulin shot will save their live. At what point is it no longer an opinion, but a fact?
WTF?!?!? What's this bs about doctor's got to do with your opinions?? LOL!
YOU think Christianity gives an adequate explanation, YOU believe in Christianity, YOU do not believe in other religions, YOU believe it after reading the bible etc. Now where does this 10 out of 10 bs come in?? ffs.. your next post best not be as retarded as this one or i'm just gonna ignore all your other retarded comments.
Explain to me this ougthness thing.. I dont know wtf you're talking about.
When something comes at you sometimes its better to catch it than duck. :) That illustrations was offered to show the difference between opinion and fact. Somethings start out as opinions, I think its like this..., then you test it or prove it and after enough times of validating or disproving your opinion it eventually becomes agreed upon fact. Does that clear things up for you? :)
On "oughtness" when someone says something is "good" (and here I'm referring to a moral judgment like its "good" that people don't kill each other as opposed to saying butter pecan ice cream is "good", which is just my opinion) It requires a judgment in which you say something "ought" to be like this and not like that. So you might say; people ought not kill each other. Now "oughtness" is an obligation to a person, usally a proper authority, like God for example. And that's were the rub comes in. What happens when someone tells you; Hey you ought not do that and your response always is; who are you to tell me what to do If there is no God who decides? Then it just becomes a matter of might makes right. So then our conversation ends with I've got the gun and you'll do what I say That's why I argue that Christianity is for the greater good. Because God is the tie breaker and He can administer justice beyond the grave. Can you see that and does it make sense?
Nope. Sounds like bs. I don't understand what you're trying to say. With me you've got to be black and white. But I'll try and rephrase what you're saying.
....
Turns out I can't... but I get the jist of it. However you're arguing for God but not Christianity.
I think what he is trying to say involves SURGE, an acronym I believe was coined by Norman Geisler.
S-Second Law of Thermodynamics
law of entropy, wind-up clock analogy
U-Universe is expanding
exploded out of nothing, big bang
R-Radiation from big bang
Arno Penzias/Robert Wilson 1965, cosmic background radiation
G-Great galaxy speeds
COBE 1992, ripples in temp of cosmic background radiation
E-Einstein's General Relativity
demands absolute beginning for time, space, and matter, accurate to 5 decimal places
Big bang and Genesis accounts both have chain of events that led to man commencing suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, therefore universe was created by Christian God.
Oh I see religious folks are biased, well cause they're religious. But us atheist and agnostics aren't. we are neutral cause we are scientific and use facts ah ha ha!
I'm not buying it cause everybody has a stake in the game and everybody is biased.
You want to talk more meaningful, try using worldview instead, every one's got one and every one has a theology, anthropology and a cosmology in that worldview, both theist and atheist.
So the real question is: does your worldview correspond to reality and there can be only one winner in this game. Let the best idea win!! arghhhh
See the funny part is.. I'm not atheist or agnostic. Ofcourse religious people are biased... so are non religious.. but you obviously can't read cause that's not what I said.
You got my point, I'm tired of "religious" people always being labeled as the biased ones. I was responding to what was implied and not to what was explicit, and your right, I can't read nor can I say anything in English, :)
If it is bs as you say, then you should be able to easily provide rebuttals to each and every acronym, no? Saying something is bs without actually showing counterarguments is in itself "bs."
LOLL I love how you completely ignore the link I posted ehh??
and then you downvoted me and tried to sound smart afterwards, but actually made yourself look like twice a fool. :D. You better upvote me again. smh. hah.
I hope you realise that when religions try to align themselves with scientific theories a LOT of what they say gets taken out of context.
I read your wiki article before posting my statement. Yes, Christian Apologists as well as others in the religion try to use the big bang theory to prove that God created the universe. What does this have to do with proving the acronym wrong? I see no specific evidence in the article that shows that the acronym I provided is false in any way, just that religions twist the big bang theory to fit their views. I do not agree with the big bang theory nor do I believe that it can be used to prove that God exists. Where is your counterargument to the acronym specifically? The acronym supposedly is proof that the big bang existed, which proves the cosmological argument for God. I want to see your counterargument. Now, are you going to post it, or are you going to keep making excuses and ad hominems?
Heheh. You amuse me :D. I mean first you were annoying to argue with as you didn't really use logic.. but now it's funny. Why would you post something which you don't agree with, especially one to do with proving Christianity as the correct religion? Why should I waste my time arguing against something that not only you don't have a clue about, but don't even think is right?
just that religions twist the big bang theory to fit their views
Get it right. Religions twist THEMSELVES to fit the big band theory.
Now let me say this one time so you cannot get it wrong. I am not going to acknowledge any of your posts unless they contain some sort of logic or at the least you try to understand. I'm mostly referring to you're blind eye to the '140 facts bs'.
In order to show that a book is factual, I have to show that it has facts in it. How can I prove a book is factual if you deny my evidence that there are any facts in it? I am not going to continue putting up with your pathetic ad hominems either. Unless you tone it down, i'm not continuing this discussion. Go bug someone else.
There is nothing to rebuke. You have yourself failed to provide any reason why the points you mentioned point towards any god, let alone the Christian god, being a probable or required starting point for the universe.
Provide some reasons why the afformentioned "acronyms" point towards the existence of a god, and I will gladly rebuke them for you. Are you simply repeating information that you have heard, or do you really understand the concepts you are trying to put across? We'll see. Okay, just for fun, let's take your first point regarding the second law of thermodynamics as the first point of contention.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. The entropy is a parameter for disorder. More order means less entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is often used by the religious to implicate a god in the perceived organisation of the world. However, this is a huge misunderstanding, as the second law applies to a closed system only. Although the entropy of a closed system never decreases, the entropy of a local system within the closed system may decrease, as long as the total entropy of the closed system does not decrease. This is very important to remember. Therefore, ordered structures can be created in a local system. For instance, water molecules may combine to form more ordered liquid water. If the second law prevented the decrease in entropy within a closed system and thus the formation of ordered structures, we would never have rain.
Order can most likely be created in a closed system which is far from equilibrium. When a closed system is in the equilibrium state, its entropy has reached a maximum value. The entropy of the closed system cannot increase further. Hence, there is no room to compensate for the entropy decrease of a local system within the closed system unless it is accompanied by an entropy increase in a neighboring local system. By contrast, if a closed system is far from equilibrium, its entropy will increase dramatically, which can compensate for a substantial entropy decrease of a local system. Thus, ordered structures are more likely to be created from a non-equilibrium state than an equilibrium state.
The Big Bang theory backs up this view of the world. The Big Bang creates an initial universe which contains an enormously high energy density and is extremely far from equilibrium. In order to reach an equilibrium state, the universe expanded rapidly, resulting in dramatic increase in entropy. This can compensate for the entropy decrease due to the formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and the life on Earth.
I have heard about the acronym and wanted to see what people thought about it. If I had agreed with it, I would have posted reasons for it, but I disagree with it. Well, yeah, saying that I "failed to provide any reason" is true. I never intended to provide a reason in the first place, but now that you asked, I will show some to you.
---
I'm not really getting what you are saying. The acronym is an explanation for the existence of the big bang, proving one part of the cosmological argument:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause (law of Causality)
2.The universe had a beginning (Big Bang)
3. Therefore the universe had a cause ( i.e. God created it)
---
The First Law of Thermo talks about the universe being constant, in other words, that it only has a finite amount of energy. There is a car analogy associated with this. If your car has a finite amount of gas (First law), and whenever its running it continually uses gas (Second law), would your car still be running if you started it up an infinitely long time ago?
With the Law of Entropy, things naturally fall apart over time, right? If the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? This is where the wind-up clock analogy comes in. If a wind-up clock is running out, then someone must have wound it up. The universe could not be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete entropy by now.
---
Now, this is what I have learned from reading Christian Apologetic books. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory, but I believe that God had a role in the making of the universe. I am just interested in seeing the counterarguments to these claims.
I misunderstood the point you were making with referring to the second law of thermodynamics. I've often heard it used to show how the Big Bang could not have happened. Apologies.
The cosmological argument is based on incorrect assumptions and therefore contains a logical flaw.
"2.The universe had a beginning (Big Bang)"
Here is the assumption. The Big Bang was not (or at least, cannot currently be known to be) the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang actually refers to an event in which the Universe expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. Unfortunately, due to technological constraints, we can not accurately say what happened before the Big Bang; in fact, we can't even say with any certainty that a before even existed. Remember that time is (or could be) a property contained within the universe, and therefore the universe itself exists within a plane that may or may not contain the dimension of time (or, at least, our linear representation of time). Take the first and second law of thermodynamics too. They obviously apply within the bounds of the universe, but do they apply to the actual universe itself? The universe, before the Big Bang occurred, may well have been infinite. Therefore, everything we think regarding the conditions of a pre-Big Bang universe are simply speculation at best.
"The First Law of Thermo talks about the universe being constant, in other words, that it only has a finite amount of energy. "
Time is an integral part of our universe so it is not clear how exactly one would characterise the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved. The idea of the "total energy of the universe" is difficult to define properly, especially with regards to gravitational relativity. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian measures the total energy of a system, and the Hamiltonian calculation for the universe shows a zero amount of energy when you offset gravitational potential energy against actual energy, assuming a closed universe. If we assume an open universe, however, then talk of energy conservation is meaningless anyway.
"With the Law of Entropy, things naturally fall apart over time, right? If the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? ... The universe could not be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete entropy by now."
This may or may not be true. Thermodynamics considers the evolution through time of the entropy of systems. As such, we can say that the the total entropy of the universe ought to decrease through time (that's assuming the the universe as a whole can be considered a "system" in the thermodynamics sense; which is not at all clear). However, If the origin of the universe also marked the beginning of time itself, then the universe can "start" with an arbitrarily large amount of useful energy without any contradiction to thermodynamics; because there is no period of time during which the universe's useful energy is increasing nor its entropy decreasing. Again, we're making assumptions about time and whether the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe itself rather than within the bounds of the universe.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that things are far more complicated when they come to the existence of the universe, and absolutely no assumptions can be made, which is what the majority of these "logical quandaries" about the origins of the universe are based on.
Incidentally, does your view of God (ie, infinite) not break the laws of thermodynamics? If you apply special properties to God that allow him to sit outside the bounds of physics, why not allow the same for the universe?
So, to sum up what you are saying, we just don't know about the origins of the universe at this place and time, and that the big bang theory is just an assumption and cannot be considered as the beginning of the universe. What about the R in the acronym though concerning the cosmic background radiation? Scientists predicted that if the Big Bang happened, there would be this type of radiation. The G in the acronym follows as well, saying that if the Big Bang actually occurred, we should see slight variations in the temperature of the cosmic radiation Penzias and Wilson discovered in 1965. In 1992 NASA's COBE found the ripples, showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to allow the formation of galaxies, but not enough to make the universe collapse on himself. Hawking even said it himself that it was 'the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.' ( http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/ docs/bigbang.html )
"So, to sum up what you are saying, we just don't know about the origins of the universe at this place and time..."
That bit is right, yes.
"...and that the big bang theory is just an assumption and cannot be considered as the beginning of the universe."
But this bit you've misunderstood. The Big Bang definitely happened. It was not, however, the beginning of the universe. It was an event that happened at a finite point in the past that caused space-time to grow exponentially. The universe existed before (though remember what I said about the assumption that time existed pre-Big Bang) the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was simply the rapid expansion of the already existent universe.
What I'm trying to get across is that anything regarding the state of the universe pre-Big Bang is purely speculation (apart from the fact that it existed, as that is required in order for it to expand), as there is no way for us (currently) to see beyond the Big Bang. There may very possibly not have even been a before, as to talk about "before" means that we are subscribing to our linear understanding of time (which is a property of the universe itself). Therefore, any assumptions made about the universe (such as whether time existed, whether the universe had a "beginning", etc) are all just speculation.
They can, therefore, not be used within any logical reasoning (The Transitive Property of Equality you provided in your previous argument) as they are points that are presumed to be correct (axioms) but are actually not so.
Okay, yes I get what you are saying now. That was actually exactly what I was thinking before you posted. How can you prove that the universe specifically began at the big bang? You cannot. Therefore, it is not a good argument to use. Thanks for clearing it all up now. I thought there was a problem with that Apologetic line of thinking, but I couldn't grasp exactly what it was.