That Religion Thing?

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

I know this, I'm just wary of this getting in the way of a possible argument. I personally just accept that our senses are our only way of obtaining any information at all, so whether the external world exists or whether everybody experiences the same sensations, we can still assume the external world exists for practical purposes or discussion.
I'm only trying to pre-empt "our realities may be different, so for me, God may be real, but for you, he may not be". Not that I'd suspect you of such arguments.

I think we should assume it. I don't think a post-modernist approach to this debate is worthy of having. God either exists or He doesn't, lets not engage of the pretence of "It's true for me and not for you" stuff. I agree entirely.

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither do I. On this one, I was making sure you're not a young Earth creationist, as an example of somebody who I would not like to waste time debating with.

Not aiming to criticise with you but I think you should widen your perspective on this. I know a few YEC's and I try to explain that it is possible to believe in God as the Creator of an older earth. They are people too and they aren't as blinkered as people might make them out to be.

Deleted User wrote: »

So, I suppose that you believe in God because you have studied the scriptures. Why do you choose to believe that God created the Universe though? Specifically, why require the Universe to have been created at all?
I'm sure you're familiar with the argument that if everything must be created, and we call the Universe's creator God, then something must have created God.
How do you explain away this paradox?

I don't see it as a paradox. I've dealt with this on the Christianity forum on this thread here. I hope you don't mind me linking to other posts its just that I've gone over a lot of this territory before.

The infinite regress argument has been a discussion of philosophy since the Middle Ages. I find that Aquinas deals with it adequately by distinguishing between contingent (finite) and necessary (infinite) causes.

I think it is important to emphasise that I believe what the Scriptures say because I find them reasonable, not just because they say what they do.

Deleted User wrote: »

If God exists and has an influence on the Universe, making it behave in different ways, or prolonging our lives perpetually, shouldn't this be a measurable phenomenon?

Can you be more precise on this? I don't believe that God exists within the universe but external to it. I believe that the universe only functions by its laws because God has created it with those laws.

Deleted User wrote: »

And lastly, if God exists and doesn't influence the Universe in a way that we can measure, why does it matter if God exists or not, because God doesn't seem to be anything more than an abstract concept then, which we would be better off not spending time on.

By measure do you mean things that are frequently observed? Or do you mean that things that are extremely rare such as miracles? I'm confused as to what you're getting at here. I believe God works in a real way, but I don't believe that this is necessarily confined to the material. I don't hold the assumption that all things that exist are material, that is that they are seen, felt, touched, smelt and tasted. Most philosophers would regard this as an inadequate way to view the world also. It is one thing to see things, it is another thing to probe into their ultimate cause.

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope to find out how a sensible-seeming believer deals with these issues.

I hope I'm being clear here.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

Duffy The Vampire Slayer: It's not my decision as to whether or not you go to heaven or hell. It is God and all His decisions are just. I am hoping that all people will come to know their God and realise that it doesn't have to be that way.

Ah but your opinion does matter. Do you think its right people should suffer infinite punishment for finite crimes?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Not aiming to criticise with you but I think you should widen your perspective on this. I know a few YEC's and I try to explain that it is possible to believe in God as the Creator of an older earth. They are people too and they aren't as blinkered as people might make them out to be.

My issue is that Young Earth Creationists fail to reject that the Earth is very young despite clear evidence that it isn't. They disregard evidence in order to preserve a particular belief that they hold through faith, whereas I would abandon a belief I held in faith in the face of evidence, so we cannot really discuss anything without hitting a wall whereby both parties are too stubborn to continue.

I don't see it as a paradox. I've dealt with this on the Christianity forum on this thread here. I hope you don't mind me linking to other posts its just that I've gone over a lot of this territory before.

The infinite regress argument has been a discussion of philosophy since the Middle Ages. I find that Aquinas deals with it adequately by distinguishing between contingent (finite) and necessary (infinite) causes.

I think it is important to emphasise that I believe what the Scriptures say because I find them reasonable, not just because they say what they do.

Hmm. I hadn't come across Aquinas' argument before. I'd like to look more into what other philosophers have said throughout the ages. I must admit that I've only looked at mostly at atheist-biased sources.
I don't agree with his argument though. Being infinite indeed would seem to negate the need for creation, but then there are plenty of theories that postulate the age of the Universe as being infinite, and then God cannot have created it, if we accept that God being infinite means that He need not have been created.
Of course, we don't know whether the Universe is finite or infinitely aged.

Although this is mainly academic, as I don't see the need for the Universe to be created at all. I think this is merely a preconception that we develop due the limited scope of our world view. On a particle physics level, in the standard model, one thing does not have to cause another - two force particles interact with each other.
On our level, it looks as if when we push a door, we cause it to move. What we suspect actually happens is that force particles exchange.
In the same way, while it may appear that the universe needs to have a cause to creature on our level, from a different POV (that of a fundamental particle), things don't need a cause at all.

Can you be more precise on this? I don't believe that God exists within the universe but external to it. I believe that the universe only functions by its laws because God has created it with those laws.

By measure do you mean things that are frequently observed? Or do you mean that things that are extremely rare such as miracles? I'm confused as to what you're getting at here. I believe God works in a real way, but I don't believe that this is necessarily confined to the material. I don't hold the assumption that all things that exist are material, that is that they are seen, felt, touched, smelt and tasted. Most philosophers would regard this as an inadequate way to view the world also. It is one thing to see things, it is another thing to probe into their ultimate cause.

I hope I'm being clear here.

I seem to have lost the thread of my own discussion here. Sorry for not being clear. What I had in mind were miracles, yes. Miracles, people being healed just through their faith and so on.
My point isn't that God doesn't exist if we don't observe these things. That would be ridiculous since as you've said, these things, if they exist, are rare. My point is that if God doesn't interfere in this way, then it would appear that our lives are the same whether or not God exists.

I also seem to have lost your argument at the same point as I lost track of what I was saying. I certainly don't hold that there is some non-material way to view the world. Neuroscience, psychoactive drugs and modern psychology point to the brain being the source of the mind. I don't believe that a person can sense the world other than through what their sense feed into their brain.

This is why I was careful at the start; you agreed that we should assume that my world is the same as your world but I notice you didn't agree with me on the subject of how we perceive the world.
My assertion is that if we assume that there are ways other than through our senses that we can make sense of reality then there is no way that we can constructively discuss any topic. I am using the information from my senses and you are using the same senses alongside some other way of perceiving the world, so we are both arguing about different worlds in a sense, if we think of our worlds as what we perceive.

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Ah but your opinion does matter. Do you think its right people should suffer infinite punishment for finite crimes?

I think God has the right to punish all for transgressing against Him. I deserve it as much as anyone else, but God in His mercy has given us a chance to restore our broken relationship with Him. That's why Christianity is good news, that we can see that God has loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to save us.

jumpguy

Fundamental views on religion, logic and morality are an incompatible combination in my opinion. The Bible was never meant to be taken literally.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

My issue is that Young Earth Creationists fail to reject that the Earth is very young despite clear evidence that it isn't. They disregard evidence in order to preserve a particular belief that they hold through faith, whereas I would abandon a belief I held in faith in the face of evidence, so we cannot really discuss anything without hitting a wall whereby both parties are too stubborn to continue.

In all honesty, the evidence for a young earth is far from clear to the ordinary person. It's certainly conclusive and overwhelming but I agree with Jakkass just because someone sees the world as 9000 years old, doesn't mean they have blinkered views on just about everything. Especially when there are plenty of other sources that specialise in selling the concept of a Young Earth to its believers.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

In all honesty, the evidence for a young earth is far from clear to the ordinary person. It's certainly conclusive and overwhelming but I agree with Jakkass just because someone sees the world as 9000 years old, doesn't mean they have blinkered views on just about everything. Especially when there are plenty of other sources that specialise in selling the concept of a Young Earth to its believers.

I didn't claim that they have blinkered views in just about everything. I won't debate with them on religion because they have blinkered views on the Big Bang Theory and other topics which are likely to come up in religious debate.

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

I think God has the right to punish all for transgressing against Him. I deserve it as much as anyone else

I can't be 100% certain without knowing you, but I doubt you've done anything to deserve eternal torment, and I can't really think of much people who have (a few historical figures come to mind as possible candidates, admittedly).
Maybe I'm just more forgiving than this God chap though.

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

If you're asking if we lived in a society where there was no such thing as any creed, then I can't answer that question obviously because I don't know what it is like to live in such a society. I suspect what has happened to date would happen.

Can you explain to me what you mean by the last sentence? Are you suggesting that you would have come up with the idea of a God existing yourself?

In a personal way through life experience yes. What I've seen of Jesus in my inquiry in the Bible has spoken into my life and has made me see things differently. I believe from the second that I decided to follow Him that He has been speaking into my life decisions transforming me by doing so. By revealed in my last quote I believe that God revealed Himself to prophets which ultimately brought about the Scriptures.

As for by visions or anything else, no I haven't experienced Him in that way.

Fine, that pretty much answers that. With regard to this point we are at an impasse.

philologos

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Can you explain to me what you mean by the last sentence? Are you suggesting that you would have come up with the idea of a God existing yourself?

No. I'm suggesting that if there were no such thing as a formal creed that God would still reveal Himself to us as He did before.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Fine, that pretty much answers that. With regard to this point we are at an impasse.

We're only at an impasse for as long as you expect me to adopt your viewpoint. Perhaps that isn't the best way to do this?

philologos

jumpguy wrote: »

Fundamental views on religion, logic and morality are an incompatible combination in my opinion. The Bible was never meant to be taken literally.

I agree that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. In parts it is. For example the Ten Commandments mean what they say they do, as does the Sermon of the Mount. Although if I took the parables of Jesus literally I'd come away thinking that He was a great agricultural guide and I should apply some of his principles to my field rather than seeing the wider point of what He is saying.

I've been trying to say that all this time and it is exactly why reading in context is important. The Bible is a library of books with differing purposes, some moral law, some history, some poetic, some prophetic, and others narrative.

I don't believe that the Bible is inconsistent with logic, and morality and I don't believe I am an extremist / distortionist for actually believing it.

Deleted User wrote: »

My issue is that Young Earth Creationists fail to reject that the Earth is very young despite clear evidence that it isn't. They disregard evidence in order to preserve a particular belief that they hold through faith, whereas I would abandon a belief I held in faith in the face of evidence, so we cannot really discuss anything without hitting a wall whereby both parties are too stubborn to continue.

That's your prerogative, I've had a lot of very constructive discussion with some. In fact I regard them as much my brothers and sisters in Christ as anyone else.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm. I hadn't come across Aquinas' argument before. I'd like to look more into what other philosophers have said throughout the ages. I must admit that I've only looked at mostly at atheist-biased sources.
I don't agree with his argument though. Being infinite indeed would seem to negate the need for creation, but then there are plenty of theories that postulate the age of the Universe as being infinite, and then God cannot have created it, if we accept that God being infinite means that He need not have been created.
Of course, we don't know whether the Universe is finite or infinitely aged.

I'm simply working with the hypothesis that most physicists would agree on. That the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and this is based on the rate of expansion since the Big Bang. If the universe was infinite (although I don't see how it could be) that would mean going back to the drawing board certainly.

By atheist sources do you mean Dawkins and Hitchens? (If so I'm quite familiar with both of their books on religion)

Deleted User wrote: »

I seem to have lost the thread of my own discussion here. Sorry for not being clear. What I had in mind were miracles, yes. Miracles, people being healed just through their faith and so on.
My point isn't that God doesn't exist if we don't observe these things. That would be ridiculous since as you've said, these things, if they exist, are rare. My point is that if God doesn't interfere in this way, then it would appear that our lives are the same whether or not God exists.

This doesn't make sense. Even if God existed and didn't perform miracles it is possible that God could still exist according to deism. I'm not a deist though and I believe that God can interact with this universe and indeed has done since Creation. If God is the author of the laws of the universe I honestly don't see what is so difficult about the idea that He can manipulate them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I also seem to have lost your argument at the same point as I lost track of what I was saying. I certainly don't hold that there is some non-material way to view the world. Neuroscience, psychoactive drugs and modern psychology point to the brain being the source of the mind. I don't believe that a person can sense the world other than through what their sense feed into their brain.

That's fine, I have no issue with the mind being the product of brain activity. I just wouldn't see it as an adequate excuse to limit the immaterial. Just because we can sense things doesn't mean that those senses aren't limited and indeed that we don't have a soul. A soul being an immaterial sense of being, not physical.

I think drawing the line at material without good cause is just limiting things.

Deleted User wrote: »

My assertion is that if we assume that there are ways other than through our senses that we can make sense of reality then there is no way that we can constructively discuss any topic. I am using the information from my senses and you are using the same senses alongside some other way of perceiving the world, so we are both arguing about different worlds in a sense, if we think of our worlds as what we perceive.

You should have asked me simply do I believe that everything is material. The answer is no, I don't. I don't believe that science answers everything either. If you have criterion for discussion and if I don't meet them then let's not but I think it's an inadequate way to discuss things.

Pygmalion wrote: »

Maybe I'm just more forgiving than this God chap though.

What is forgiveness? - As I would see it forgiveness is acknowledging that someone is remorseful and forgoing whatever has been done against you by that individual.

How can we expect to be forgiven if we are just going to ignore God? - In fact if you don't want to know God or be with God for eternity then the only option really is for Him to separate you from Him.

We're not considering what the good news is. If we believe and trust in Jesus and aim to adopt His values each and every day we can start afresh with God. He will guide us in following Him. All we have to do is accept Him. If we reject Him then that's it, we've rejected life with Him and in the hereafter. I find what Jesus has achieved for us on the cross to be inspiring and life changing and there is no reason it can't be for anyone else either.

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

No. I'm suggesting that if there were no such thing as a formal creed that God would still reveal Himself to us as He did before.



We're only at an impasse for as long as you expect me to adopt your viewpoint. Perhaps that isn't the best way to do this?

I did not expect you to adopt my viewpoint. Where did I state, imply, or even hint at that? I wanted to understand your position, not convert you to atheism. Now I do. I regard it as somewhat ridiculous, but nevertheless I accept that there is nothing I can say to disprove it, because it is not of a nature that permits it to be disproven. Hence the impasse (I don't consider "let's agree to disagree" to be an agreement as such). No further progress can be made, therefore it is an impasse, unless I'm misusing the term.

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

What is forgiveness? - As I would see it forgiveness is acknowledging that someone is remorseful and forgoing whatever has been done against you by that individual.

How can we expect to be forgiven if we are just going to ignore God? - In fact if you don't want to know God or be with God for eternity then the only option really is for Him to separate you from Him.

I don't see remorse as necessary for forgiveness. Forgiveness has little to do with remorse in that respect. Remorse can be a reason for forgiving somebody, or a prompt to do so, is not a part of the act of forgiving.
Forgiving is simply to stop feeling anger, resentment or a desire for retribution towards someone for an offence that they have caused.

philologos

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I did not expect you to adopt my viewpoint. Where did I state, imply, or even hint at that? I wanted to understand your position, not convert you to atheism. Now I do. I regard it as somewhat ridiculous, but nevertheless I accept that there is nothing I can say to disprove it, because it is not of a nature that permits it to be disproven. Hence the impasse (I don't consider "let's agree to disagree" to be an agreement as such). No further progress can be made, therefore it is an impasse, unless I'm misusing the term.

We're not at an impasse then. Why do you regard the idea of God as Creator as ridiculous? That's what I've been wondering, it seems to make a lot of sense to me.

That's what it comes down to. You think it is absurd to suggest that Christianity isn't man made, which ultimately means that you think it is absurd that God exists and that God actually revealed Himself to mankind.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I don't see remorse as necessary for forgiveness. Forgiveness has little to do with remorse in that respect. Remorse can be a reason for forgiving somebody, or a prompt to do so, is not a part of the act of forgiving.
Forgiving is simply to stop feeling anger, resentment or a desire for retribution towards someone for an offence that they have caused.

I do, let's say I was in a horrible family situation (I'm not at all but just for the sake of the argument :pac:). I did something horrible to my mother and my father and I ultimately decided to run away and leave home. How could I be truly forgiven unless I came to them and acknowledged remorse? I would still be ignoring them, how is that a relationship resolved?

Remorse has everything to do with forgiveness. One can't be truly sorry if they are actually unremorseful about what they have done. How can I expect God to forgive me if I decide to turn my back on Him for all of my life (as I did for many many years)? I can't because the relationship as it began in Genesis 1:26-27 was destroyed the mirror broken by our unwillingness to reflect God, but if I decide to come home and acknowledge Him as my true Creator and sustainer and admit that I've done wrong against Him we can start afresh. God has forgiven us all already if we are just willing to accept it. That's what He achieved for us on the cross.

I love these three parables in Luke. They express so much to me and I think they might make better sense of this than I am.

I've linked to these podcasts already in the thread. They make a lot of sense about what God's big picture is all about.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I'm simply working with the hypothesis that most physicists would agree on. That the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and this is based on the rate of expansion since the Big Bang. If the universe was infinite (although I don't see how it could be) that would mean going back to the drawing board certainly.

There are theories that involve multiverses, that involve a Universe contracting and expanding periodically and so on. Nobody really knows who is right. Aquinas' argument, which I still don't agree with due to the assumption that everything must have a cause, applies to the finite Universe case, where the Universe was created at precisely the beginning of the Big Bang.

By atheist sources do you mean Dawkins and Hitchens? (If so I'm quite familiar with both of their books on religion)

I've read those two, but mostly I've read a lot of information across the internet. I was saying that I regret only reading atheistic-biased sources.

This doesn't make sense. Even if God existed and didn't perform miracles it is possible that God could still exist according to deism. I'm not a deist though and I believe that God can interact with this universe and indeed has done since Creation. If God is the author of the laws of the universe I honestly don't see what is so difficult about the idea that He can manipulate them.

And I said that he can exist in this way. However, if He can manipulate the laws of the Universe, we'd be able to concretely detect that happening.
My other point that you claimed didn't make sense is that if God still exists according to Deism (suppose for a second), then it makes no difference to us, as he never influences the Universe in which we live.

That's fine, I have no issue with the mind being the product of brain activity. I just wouldn't see it as an adequate excuse to limit the immaterial. Just because we can sense things doesn't mean that those senses aren't limited and indeed that we don't have a soul. A soul being an immaterial sense of being, not physical.

I think drawing the line at material without good cause is just limiting things.

I think that drawing the line at material is all we have evidence to do.

You should have asked me simply do I believe that everything is material. The answer is no, I don't. I don't believe that science answers everything either. If you have criterion for discussion and if I don't meet them then let's not but I think it's an inadequate way to discuss things.

Really I was just trying to get to the points we differed on as quickly as possible. I don't tend to think in terms of material and immaterial, as you can probably guess, which is why it never occurred to me to ask it that way.
If my style of discussion offended you in any way, I apologise. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just to understand other people's beliefs.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

There are theories that involve multiverses, that involve a Universe contracting and expanding periodically and so on. Nobody really knows who is right. Aquinas' argument, which I still don't agree with due to the assumption that everything must have a cause, applies to the finite Universe case, where the Universe was created at precisely the beginning of the Big Bang.

I personally don't see any good reason to presume that the universe if it is indeed finite in terms of age (which I'm open to discussion on) isn't caused as all other things of finite age are.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read those two, but mostly I've read a lot of information across the internet. I was saying that I regret only reading atheistic-biased sources.

You really should or else inquiry becomes something that one does in order to reinforce ones previously held beliefs. We can be all guilty of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I said that he can exist in this way. However, if He can manipulate the laws of the Universe, we'd be able to concretely detect that happening.
My other point that you claimed didn't make sense is that if God still exists according to Deism (suppose for a second), then it makes no difference to us, as he never influences the Universe in which we live.

Nobody is denying that we would be able to determine what is miraculous from what isn't. Simply by it being so contrary to what usually happens. The laws of science are based on what is regularly observed, in some cases it applies to what isn't when we bring what we can see on a particular level to a more universal level. For example we can see evolution in the lab, but we cannot see major transitions between species because this takes much longer through natural selection.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that just because you or I haven't seen a miracle that one necessarily hasn't happened.

Although it's necessary to note when considering natural science what other thinkers such as David Hume had to say on the subject. We can only know that the sun is going to rise in the morning in so far as it has occurred on that level repeatedly for so long. It is possible that the sun for some reason or another won't rise in the morning, but all probability suggests that it will. That's how we form patterns as to what is expected, but it still doesn't mean that the unexpected can't happen even if the observed patterns which accord to scientific laws may hold.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that drawing the line at material is all we have evidence to do.

I think we have evidence that suggests that God may exist. What indicates that God is more likely than not. I presume that you would say that you have evidence to show that God is less likely. I don't believe blindly and without good reason. I don't confine my reasons to believing to science either. I believe also because the Bible makes more sense about the nature of humanity than anything else that I have ever read.

Deleted User wrote: »

Really I was just trying to get to the points we differed on as quickly as possible. I don't tend to think in terms of material and immaterial, as you can probably guess, which is why it never occurred to me to ask it that way.

It doesn't matter how people generally think, but it does matter that claiming that everything is material is actually done by faith also. I don't mean faith in the sense of a creed or a religion, but it is done by significant assumption.

Deleted User wrote: »

If my style of discussion offended you in any way, I apologise. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just to understand other people's beliefs.

Not at all, but there are some unfounded assumptions that you are making.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I personally don't see any good reason to presume that the universe if it is indeed finite in terms of age (which I'm open to discussion on) isn't caused as all other things of finite age are.

Ok. My view is that in Aquinas' argument, he accepts that there must have been a first cause, but God is an acceptable first cause, he says, because God is an infinite or necessary cause.
I just don't believe that an infinite first cause is any better than a finite first cause. This is my view.

Regarding miracles, I think you took me up wrong. I only meant that if we cannot observe God's miracles in the world, then there is no practical difference between believing God exists and believing he doesn't, in my view. Of course, there is for you since your belief is that you will have eternal life if you accept God.
I wasn't commenting on the truth or falsity of God or miracles. My point was a practical one.

On Hume's thinking, it is absolutely right. We theorise about the world knowing that should the laws that govern it change instantly, all of our theories would be gone.
Of course, this change would be noticeable.

I think we have evidence that suggests that God may exist. What indicates that God is more likely than not. I presume that you would say that you have evidence to show that God is less likely. I don't believe blindly and without good reason. I don't confine my reasons to believing to science either. I believe also because the Bible makes more sense about the nature of humanity than anything else that I have ever read.

I don't have such evidence. God does not seem more likely than any other explanation for the universe. Although this should strictly make me an agnostic, I tend to think that I should be no more agnostic about God than about fairies in the garden. I forget who first said that.

Interesting that, about the bible. You may very well be right, although it wouldn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Such a huge book, much of it history, is sure to shed a light on humanity through its content, even if we look past the fact that it is supposed to be about God.

It doesn't matter how people generally think, but it does matter that claiming that everything is material is actually done by faith also. I don't mean faith in the sense of a creed or a religion, but it is done by significant assumption.

Fair point. It's difficult to know who makes less leaps of faith though. For example:

A religious man might start out with this assumption:
1. There is an external world.
2. What I perceive with my senses doesn't give me a full sense of this external world.

Whereas a less religious man might start out with this assumption:
1. What I perceive with my senses is true.
2. What I perceive with my senses is indicative of an external world.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that we make the same number of assumptions. This is dependent on language and how I've written this. What I am asserting is that you have to make one starting assumption about your reality, and depending on this starting assumption, you may make more or less leaps of faith.
So if you start with one assumption, science may seem to have less faith involved, whereas if you start with another, religion may seem to take less for granted.

Incidentally, and unrelated, I am writing an essay about why, for the purposes of theorising about the natural sciences, we can safely ignore whether or not what we perceive represents an external world or represents the same world as any other human.

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

We're not at an impasse then. Why do you regard the idea of God as Creator as ridiculous? That's what I've been wondering, it seems to make a lot of sense to me.

That's what it comes down to. You think it is absurd to suggest that Christianity isn't man made, which ultimately means that you think it is absurd that God exists and that God actually revealed Himself to mankind.

For a number of reasons.
1. There is no evidence for it, and so, essentially, it is unfounded.
2. It serves no useful purpose, other than to give people a means of escaping the logically inescapable idea that our existence as individuals is finite, or of giving meaning to life. I have no problems with being finite, and the idea that I will not exist in 100 years time. I also believe that meaning comes from our own actions and interactions, and so God is unnecessary.
3. It requires acceptance of the idea that we are subject to the whims of some infinitely superior force. This serves only as a way for people to absolve themselves of responsibility for the world, as far as I can see.

I do, let's say I was in a horrible family situation (I'm not at all but just for the sake of the argument :pac:). I did something horrible to my mother and my father and I ultimately decided to run away and leave home. How could I be truly forgiven unless I came to them and acknowledged remorse? I would still be ignoring them, how is that a relationship resolved?

Remorse has everything to do with forgiveness. One can't be truly sorry if they are actually unremorseful about what they have done. How can I expect God to forgive me if I decide to turn my back on Him for all of my life (as I did for many many years)? I can't because the relationship as it began in Genesis 1:26-27 was destroyed the mirror broken by our unwillingness to reflect God, but if I decide to come home and acknowledge Him as my true Creator and sustainer and admit that I've done wrong against Him we can start afresh. God has forgiven us all already if we are just willing to accept it. That's what He achieved for us on the cross.

You do not need to be sorry for your parents to forgive your actions, and you. Forgiving you is a choice they make, and requires absolutely nothing on your part.

I love these three parables in Luke. They express so much to me and I think they might make better sense of this than I am.

In the last case, the father had already forgiven the son prior to his coming home and repenting, proving my point. When he saw him he had already forgiven him, without (ie. prior to) any display of remorse on his son's part. Thank you.

I've linked to these podcasts already in the thread. They make a lot of sense about what God's big picture is all about.

I don't really have 2 hours + to spare to listen to podcasts. I'm happy to read and respond to any points you make yourself, however.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. My view is that in Aquinas' argument, he accepts that there must have been a first cause, but God is an acceptable first cause, he says, because God is an infinite or necessary cause.
I just don't believe that an infinite first cause is any better than a finite first cause. This is my view.

Fair enough, but ultimately if there was an infinite regress there would be nothing caused because it would be still being caused. This is the argument that a lot of Jewish, Christian and Islamic thinkers made during the Middle Ages.

Deleted User wrote: »

Regarding miracles, I think you took me up wrong. I only meant that if we cannot observe God's miracles in the world, then there is no practical difference between believing God exists and believing he doesn't, in my view. Of course, there is for you since your belief is that you will have eternal life if you accept God.
I wasn't commenting on the truth or falsity of God or miracles. My point was a practical one.

Who said we can't when they occur? It's just extremely rare. I'm still not getting your argument here.

As for there being no practical difference, I don't think this lies in eternal life. I've seen people completely changed by hearing about the Gospel and believing it. I can account for this in my own life and other people I know (before and after) can too. It is obvious from even reading through the Gospels how they can inspire someones life.

I also believe that a lot of people who claim to be Christians aren't the best ambassadors for it either. I wouldn't call myself the best Christian in the world, but I understand that it is a process and that I will be continually learning until I die to put my old ways aside and to continually adopt new ways.

Deleted User wrote: »

On Hume's thinking, it is absolutely right. We theorise about the world knowing that should the laws that govern it change instantly, all of our theories would be gone.
Of course, this change would be noticeable.

I'm not saying that the changes that would be produced by miracles, and in someone's life aren't noticeable.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have such evidence. God does not seem more likely than any other explanation for the universe. Although this should strictly make me an agnostic, I tend to think that I should be no more agnostic about God than about fairies in the garden. I forget who first said that.

You should look into Christian apologetics if you want to see the arguments that Christians put forward for their faith. I'd recommend C.S Lewis' - Mere Christianity.

There is simply a lot more reason to believe that the universe is created than fairies. I would consider it more akin to fairytale to believe that this universe just managed to sustain life as an accident despite the fact that this is grossly improbable. I believe that it is more reasonable that this was the act of Creation rather than a cosmic accident which is by definition grossly improbable.

That is in fairness to you, Richard Dawkins and the fairies that may or may not exist at the back of your respective gardens :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting that, about the bible. You may very well be right, although it wouldn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Such a huge book, much of it history, is sure to shed a light on humanity through its content, even if we look past the fact that it is supposed to be about God.

It does however have to do with how faithful it is and how it corresponds to reality which as far as I'm concerned is as important in establishing truth as anything else.

Deleted User wrote: »

1. There is an external world.
2. What I perceive with my senses doesn't give me a full sense of this external world.

By definition your senses can't give you a full sense of the world, they can only perceive a limited amount of matter at any given time. This is evident to anyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, I don't mean to suggest that we make the same number of assumptions. This is dependent on language and how I've written this. What I am asserting is that you have to make one starting assumption about your reality, and depending on this starting assumption, you may make more or less leaps of faith.
So if you start with one assumption, science may seem to have less faith involved, whereas if you start with another, religion may seem to take less for granted.

I don't agree. I follow from what is reasonable I think. I believe only in what makes sense to me, I don't believe things that can't make sense and indeed I don't know how anyone could do this. I honestly believe that Christianity is more reasonable than atheism in a number of ways, that's why I am a Christian and not an atheist.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

For a number of reasons.
1. There is no evidence for it, and so, essentially, it is unfounded.
2. It serves no useful purpose, other than to give people a means of escaping the logically inescapable idea that our existence as individuals is finite, or of giving meaning to life. I have no problems with being finite, and the idea that I will not exist in 100 years time. I also believe that meaning comes from our own actions and interactions, and so God is unnecessary.
3. It requires acceptance of the idea that we are subject to the whims of some infinitely superior force. This serves only as a way for people to absolve themselves of responsibility for the world, as far as I can see.

1. There is plenty of reason to believe there is a God. As I've said to conorstuff I believe it is a greater leap to suggest that the universe came to be as it is in and of itself as a cosmic accident.
2. It helps people to live significant lives as far as I see it. It allows people to live for a higher ideal other than themselves. I have no issue with dying from this existence either to be honest with you, and most of my consideration is based around the world in the here and now and what Jesus can do in this world.
3. How? - Christianity encourages accountability. It encourages people to put things right with both God and neighbour. If one is angry with their brother they should put things right with Him before partaking in any form of religious activity. If anyone is due to go to court it is advisable to settle outside of court and do what is right. Christianity teaches that we will all have to give an account before the judgement seat of Christ an give an account for each and every word that we speak. How does this hinder accountability?

EuropeanSon wrote: »

You do not need to be sorry for your parents to forgive your actions, and you. Forgiving you is a choice they make, and requires absolutely nothing on your part.

We have a radically different understanding of forgiveness if you believe that it is just a free for all that actually does nothing to restore a broken relationship.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

In the last case, the father had already forgiven the son prior to his coming home and repenting, proving my point. When he saw him he had already forgiven him, without (ie. prior to) any display of remorse on his son's part. Thank you.

He still had to come home to live with Him. Let's look at this more closely:

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

The son still had to come home in order to receive this reception. If the son did not come home the son would be still at a distance from his Father. In coming home he acknowledged his sinfulness towards his Father.

All we need to do is come home to God and begin that amazing relationship that He began with us at creation, but a relationship which we decided to shatter by following our own selfish will rather than being a part of God's ultimate plan which is in place for our best interest.

In the first verse where the younger son said to the Father to give him his share in inheritance in Middle Eastern cultures that would be effectively saying that you are dead to me because people wouldn't have received this inheritance until after death. As I see it for as long as I ignored God I treated Him as if He were dead to me. As I embraced God I allowed Him to be a part of my life and I recognised that He was alive in existence.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

As for there being no practical difference, I don't think this lies in eternal life. I've seen people completely changed by hearing about the Gospel and believing it. I can account for this in my own life and other people I know (before and after) can too. It is obvious from even reading through the Gospels how they can inspire someones life.

Fair enough. This is usually more for accepting the values taught than for accepting a supreme creator, or do you disagree?

You should look into Christian apologetics if you want to see the arguments that Christians put forward for their faith. I'd recommend C.S Lewis' - Mere Christianity.

Cheers, I will.

There is simply a lot more reason to believe that the universe is created than fairies. I would consider it more akin to fairytale to believe that this universe just managed to sustain life as an accident despite the fact that this is grossly improbable. I believe that it is more reasonable that this was the act of Creation rather than a cosmic accident which is by definition grossly improbable.

:eek:
Ah. Well I'm not sure what interpretation of probability you're taking here. I assume you're talking about the probability that the Universe has the correct conditions to sustain life.

Frequentist probability has nothing to say about this. So far we have observed one Universe that sustains life. We haven't observed that there are any other possible Universes so you could say that the probability that our Universe sustains life is 100%. Of course, all I'm trying to get across here is that you cannot use probability on the event of the creation of the Universe, at least not by current probability theories.

Bayesian views of probability cannot apply since they rely on prior subjective measurements of probability and prior to the creation of the Universe, we can not have such a prior feeling.

By definition your senses can't give you a full sense of the world, they can only perceive a limited amount of matter at any given time. This is evident to anyone.

I thought it was implicit that I meant that the immaterial would be something our senses cannot perceive at any point in space-time. My apologies for the ambiguity.

Turtwig

Technically the universe always existed. Saying it is finite or infinite is limited severely by our view on time. I don't think one can claim either way. In all honesty, I think the same applies to God. I don't think it's logical to even try addressing the infinite regress of nature or the supernatural by logic.

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

1. There is plenty of reason to believe there is a God. As I've said to conorstuff I believe it is a greater leap to su

ggest that the universe came to be as it is in and of itself as a cosmic accident.
2. It helps people to live significant lives as far as I see it. It allows people to live for a higher ideal other than themselves. I have no issue with dying from this existence either to be honest with you, and most of my consideration is based around the world in the here and now and what Jesus can do in this world.
3. How? - Christianity encourages accountability. It encourages people to put things right with both God and neighbour. If one is angry with their brother they should put things right with Him before partaking in any form of religious activity. If anyone is due to go to court it is advisable to settle outside of court and do what is right. Christianity teaches that we will all have to give an account before the judgement seat of Christ an give an account for each and every word that we speak. How does this hinder accountability?

1. Give me a reason, perhaps. Saying something exists does not an argument make.
2. Living for a higher ideal is good. Living for something that doesn't exist isn't. There are many higher ideals I could live for, say for example living for others (a family, friends, for the benefit of society in general, etc.). This would do far more good than living to please a supernatural being of questionable morality (see bible quotes, 5/6 pages ago).
3. Everyone with a reasonable moral outlook encourages some degree of accountability. I do already, without Christianity. Christianity does provide an outlet for people to blame for their failures (ie. saying things like "it wasn't meant to be" or "it was God's will" in the wake of failures or catastrophes). This outlet is undoubtedly used by some people, therefore it's existence cannot be denied.

We have a radically different understanding of forgiveness if you believe that it is just a free for all that actually does nothing to restore a broken relationship.

Please read what I wrote. Just because one party doesn't have to do something doesn't meant they don't. That something, however, is independent of the act of forgiving. Also, to restore a broken relationship, it is not necessary that both sides make concessions.

He still had to come home to live with Him. Let's look at this more closely:


The son still had to come home in order to receive this reception. If the son did not come home the son would be still at a distance from his Father. In coming home he acknowledged his sinfulness towards his Father.

Blatantly untrue. Note that his apology is after the forgiveness is given. The father hugs him and greets him beaming prior to his apology. In coming home, he is not necessarily acknowledging sinfulness. For all the father knew, he could have been back to ask for more money. the father was just happy to see his son again, and forgave him because his anger was inconsequential by comparison to the pain he felt at the loss of his son.

All we need to do is come home to God and begin that amazing relationship that He began with us at creation, but a relationship which we decided to shatter by following our own selfish will rather than being a part of God's ultimate plan which is in place for our best interest.

In the first verse where the younger son said to the Father to give him his share in inheritance in Middle Eastern cultures that would be effectively saying that you are dead to me because people wouldn't have received this inheritance until after death. As I see it for as long as I ignored God I treated Him as if He were dead to me. As I embraced God I allowed Him to be a part of my life and I recognised that He was alive in existence.

This is just preaching, and doesn't really call for a response on my part.

philologos

EuropeanSon wrote: »

1. Give me a reason, perhaps. Saying something exists does not an argument make.
2. Living for a higher ideal is good. Living for something that doesn't exist isn't. There are many higher ideals I could live for, say for example living for others (a family, friends, for the benefit of society in general, etc.). This would do far more good than living to please a supernatural being of questionable morality (see bible quotes, 5/6 pages ago).
3. Everyone with a reasonable moral outlook encourages some degree of accountability. I do already, without Christianity. Christianity does provide an outlet for people to blame for their failures (ie. saying things like "it wasn't meant to be" or "it was God's will" in the wake of failures or catastrophes). This outlet is undoubtedly used by some people, therefore it's existence cannot be denied.

1. I've given quite a few reasons already. I might go into some more later as the discussing progresses.
2. Indeed, the question is whether or not we can be convinced that God exists. To me it is pretty intuitive. As for the quotes that people used, I've questioned thoroughly the understanding that people seek to impose on them and instead have encouraged in context reading. Again, see a few pages ago.
3. You claimed that Christianity diminishes the accountability that we have. On a Biblical level I would say that that isn't actually true. Christianity encourages accountability to ourselves, to our neighbours and ultimately to God. You can claim that individuals can claim X, Y, and Z. That's true but whether or not this can be derived Biblically is another question.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Please read what I wrote. Just because one party doesn't have to do something doesn't meant they don't. That something, however, is independent of the act of forgiving. Also, to restore a broken relationship, it is not necessary that both sides make concessions.

We have a radically different understanding of forgiveness. To restore a relationship that is broken by one party, it involves one person willing to turn away from what they have done and in the case of another being willing to let go. In the case of God it is about us being willing to live for Him rather than for ourselves.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Blatantly untrue. Note that his apology is after the forgiveness is given. The father hugs him and greets him beaming prior to his apology. In coming home, he is not necessarily acknowledging sinfulness. For all the father knew, he could have been back to ask for more money. the father was just happy to see his son again, and forgave him because his anger was inconsequential by comparison to the pain he felt at the loss of his son.

Nonsense. God loves us even when we transgress against Him. The fact that God loves the individual doesn't necessarily mean that the relationship has been restored to its original form. The problem here seems to be that we have different understandings of forgiveness. You think it simply means letting someone off the hook. I think it means a mutual effort to bring things back to the way they once were. This is the forgiveness that is accounted for Biblically also. One needs to repent and believe in the Gospel which is what Jesus preached in the Gospel accounts.

The son had to only come home and on doing so the Father welcomed him. If we come home by accepting what God has done for us, then we can also be forgiven.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

This is just preaching, and doesn't really call for a response on my part.

It's explaining the significance of why I brought that passage in. If you don't want to discuss don't, I'm OK with that, but I'll discuss how I feel is best if you are going to. That's pretty fair I think.

jumpguy

philologos wrote: »

I agree that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. In parts it is. For example the Ten Commandments mean what they say they do, as does the Sermon of the Mount. Although if I took the parables of Jesus literally I'd come away thinking that He was a great agricultural guide and I should apply some of his principles to my field rather than seeing the wider point of what He is saying.

I've been trying to say that all this time and it is exactly why reading in context is important. The Bible is a library of books with differing purposes, some moral law, some history, some poetic, some prophetic, and others narrative.

I don't believe that the Bible is inconsistent with logic, and morality and I don't believe I am an extremist / distortionist for actually believing it.

My statement was probably too vague, I'm sorry, I was referring more to the stuff on how old the Earth is (logic) and the existance of Hell (morality)

The ten commandments do indeed mean what they say (however, does going to mass mean honouring the Sabbath day? Wouldn't priests then have to work on Sundays?). In fact, overall, I think the Bible (the New Testament particularly) is an excellent moral guide. Unfortunately I don't think it's a guide the Church has followed itself for most of it's existance.

I'm confused by your last paragraph - you start saying it's not meant to be taken literally and then end saying you believe it. Unless you mean "believe" in another sense.

philologos

jumpguy wrote: »

My statement was probably too vague, I'm sorry, I was referring more to the stuff on how old the Earth is (logic) and the existance of Hell (morality)

I'd simply base what I would believe based on what I find reasonable and sensible to believe.

jumpguy wrote: »

The ten commandments do indeed mean what they say (however, does going to mass mean honouring the Sabbath day? Wouldn't priests then have to work on Sundays?). In fact, overall, I think the Bible (the New Testament particularly) is an excellent moral guide. Unfortunately I don't think it's a guide the Church has followed itself for most of it's existance.

Rabbis serve God on the shabbat even in Judaism. The Shabbat as it was regarded in Judaism is between Saturday and Sunday. Jesus contributed a lot to Sabbath teaching in Christianity in that he said that the Sabbath is for man and not man for the sabbath. It was one of the issues where Jesus challenged the Jewish orthodoxy the most.

The Shabbat in Judaism was from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Christians worship on Sunday because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday. So there are differences in how Christians and Jews interpret sabbath.

As for the Church. I generally post from a general perspective. It's important to remember that there is more than 1 church. We've all fallen short of the mark certainly, but this isn't a reason to disregard God or Jesus.

jumpguy wrote: »

I'm confused by your last paragraph - you start saying it's not meant to be taken literally and then end saying you believe it. Unless you mean "believe" in another sense.

The Bible contains truth as far as I see it, but the truth that is discovered in allegory or analogy which is contained in a lot of prophetic writing and parable isn't to be taken literally, but it is nonetheless communicating a truth. I believe in the truth that the Bible communicates even if it isn't to be read literally at all opportunities. Even the most ardent literalist from the Bible Belt wouldn't read the parables of Jesus literally because one can recognise that it is of a analogous / symbolic literary genre. That's common sense as far as I would see it.