Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?

Bubbaclaus

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is plenty of disagreement within religions about the meaning of certain parts of the bible. There are numerous variants of the Christian faith, are you of the opinion that they didn't really read the bible.

It seems massively condescending to claim that anyone that disagrees with your POV simply hasn't tried hard enough.

The post was massively condescending and broke at least 2 rules in the charter. Disappointing that nothing was done about it.

Edit: well given one side of the debate is given free reign to be as condescending as they like on here without any moderation, whilst the other side is silenced, I am out. No wonder this forum is like a desert wasteland. Enjoy folks.

smacl

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The post was massively condescending and broke at least 2 rules in the charter. Disappointing that nothing was done about it.

Mod: Carded for backseat moderation

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Catholicism does make sense to me, I don't understand why the fact we don't understand everything makes you believe it is false.

That's not what I said. There are many different possible religions that make sense to you and the general public, including Christianity as well as the one that I suggested of a God that only created us but does not judge us. So why instead choose the religion that has many known contradictions, that has many interpretations, that has to justify why God created pain and suffering etc.?

John Hutton wrote: »

If God is all powerful and all knowing, he can only be understood by man via what He reveals to us. I refer you again to the section on revelation in the Catholic Catechism. The whole Bible is a gradual and incremental "roll out" of revelation where God is making himself understood to man in ways which man can understand, culminating in Jesus Christ.

I'm sure these statements sounds very deep to you, but they don't mean anything to me nor do they suggest that Christianity is correct.

John Hutton wrote: »

When you are a small child, our parents (should we have good ones) will often do things in our best interest which seem bad to our childish minds, or incomprehensible. Such as make us go to bed, or not allow us to only eat sweets. Given that the gulf in perspective and knowledge between man and God is far greater than the gulf between the child and adult mind, it is perfectly logical, and inevitable, that we will not be able to understand everything 100%. That doesn't mean we should not try to of course, searching for God is natural and good.

Yes. This is why we should science to try to advance our understanding of the universe rather than simply giving up and saying "well God did it and we could never possibly understand why he did it because of our comparatively small brains".

John Hutton wrote: »

Through the Bible, and the NT in particular, as well as the magesterium, we understand a great deal about God and why things happen - just because mysteries remain it does not mean it does not make sense, especially when we know why such things are a mystery!

You believe that you understand a great deal about God because you choose to believe in certain scripture and not in other scripture. The human race in general however knows nothing about God because we have no evidence that such a God exists. And the human race certainly does not know why such things are a mystery as you state.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what I said. There are many different possible religions that make sense to you and the general public, including Christianity as well as the one that I suggested of a God that only created us but does not judge us. So why instead choose the religion that has many known contradictions, that has many interpretations, that has to justify why God created pain and suffering etc.?

What you are saying is why would you pick a religion with "mystery or contradictions" when conceivably there are religions that have no mystery or contradictions? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm sure these statements sounds very deep to you, but they don't mean anything to me nor do they suggest that Christianity is correct.

If you are unwilling to engage with material, then what is the point of this discussion? You are, among other things, essentially asking how to reconcile the Old and New Testaments and apparent differences in God, and when an answer is supplied you just say "that means nothing to me". You cannot on the one hand point at objectionable (to you) parts of the Bible and say "explain that!" and then when an explanation is given (within the context of what you asked about, i.e. scripture and religious teaching) just basically say that it is all nonsense anyway. What is the point of you persisting in this line of inquiry and discussion?

Yes. This is why we should science to try to advance our understanding of the universe rather than simply giving up and saying "well God did it and we could never possibly understand why he did it because of our comparatively small brains".

But no one is saying that, I directly said previously that we must not do that. In fact, the Catholic Church does what you say we should, both directly through its own direct scientific endeavors and Universities, and actually states that it is imperative that man seeks to understand the world around him, by science.

Again I ask, why do you think you would be able to 100% understand the actions of something which is omnipotent? Is it not, almost be definition, impossible for us to fully understand, beyond what that power has revealed to us, either by direct revelation, or by what we can discern about the world around us (including science)?

You believe that you understand a great deal about God because you choose to believe in certain scripture and not in other scripture. The human race in general however knows nothing about God because we have no evidence that such a God exists. And the human race certainly does not know why such things are a mystery as you state.

I direct your attention to the following for the Compendium of the Catechism:

3. How is it possible to know God with only the light of human reason?
31-36
46-47
Starting from creation, that is from the world and from the human person, through reason alone one can know God with certainty as the origin and end of the universe, as the highest good and as infinite truth and beauty.

4. Is the light of reason alone sufficient to know the mystery of God?
37-38
In coming to a knowledge of God by the light of reason alone man experiences many difficulties. Indeed, on his own he is unable to enter into the intimacy of the divine mystery. This is why he stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.

In other words, we can, through reason, satisfy ourselves as to existence of God, but beyond that we need to look to what God revealed to us, through scripture and ultimately Christ. And so, we enter into the realm of faith.

You are asking, essentially, why I think Christianity is true. Let us have this conversation, in this regard, on your terms. I ask you, how do you decide or define if something is true or not?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

What you are saying is why would you pick a religion with "mystery or contradictions" when conceivably there are religions that have no mystery or contradictions? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, particularly the contradictions. If there is a religion that has contradictions, why choose that over the infinite amount of possible religions? Or, at least, why not read the scripture of other religions to see if you find less contradictions in those and then go from there?

John Hutton wrote: »

If you are unwilling to engage with material, then what is the point of this discussion?

The discussion is about whether the idea of God existing is a scary thing. Non-Christians do not believe the Bible is the word of God, just like you don't believe the Koran is. Quoting or referring to sections in the Bible to me means just as much as me quoting the Koran to you.

John Hutton wrote: »

You are, among other things, essentially asking how to reconcile the Old and New Testaments and apparent differences in God, and when an answer is supplied you just say "that means nothing to me". You cannot on the one hand point at objectionable (to you) parts of the Bible and say "explain that!" and then when an explanation is given (within the context of what you asked about, i.e. scripture and religious teaching) just basically say that it is all nonsense anyway. What is the point of you persisting in this line of inquiry and discussion?

I have at no point referenced any passage from the Bible nor asked you to explain such passages, no idea what you are talking about.

John Hutton wrote: »

But no one is saying that, I directly said previously that we must not do that. In fact, the Catholic Church does what you say we should, both directly through its own direct scientific endeavors and Universities, and actually states that it is imperative that man seeks to understand the world around him, by science.

Yes, but you have also said countless times that it is impossible to fully comprehend and understand all of the actions of God. There are an infinite number of religions in which you don't need to resort to this to answer the unknown. So why choose this religion where you have to just say "I dunno because God lol" for the unexplained?

John Hutton wrote: »

Again I ask, why do you think you would be able to 100% understand the actions of something which is omnipotent? Is it not, almost be definition, impossible for us to fully understand, beyond what that power has revealed to us, either by direct revelation, or by what we can discern about the world around us (including science)?

Yes, if God existed then I certainly would not expect to fully understand him (I barely understand most humans as it is). But that is not a reason for him to exist nor is it reason why you need him to exist. I do not know how how a car engine works but that does not mean that I need to resort to inventing a God to explain it.

John Hutton wrote: »

I direct your attention to the following for the Compendium of the Catechism:

Yes those are very nice words which as you know mean nothing to me.

John Hutton wrote: »

You are asking, essentially, why I think Christianity is true. Let us have this conversation, in this regard, on your terms. I ask you, how do you decide or define if something is true or not?

Evidence.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, particularly the contradictions. If there is a religion that has contradictions, why choose that over the infinite amount of possible religions? Or, at least, why not read the scripture of other religions to see if you find less contradictions in those and then go from there?

I would ask you to point out a contradiction in Christianity. The most commonly put forward, apparent contradiction is between the God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. But as I have detailed, it is an apparent contradiction which is only evident when one decontextualizes scripture and does not view the Bible in its entirety, in light of the "ending", i.e. Christ. Perhaps you have another contradiction in mind?

The discussion is about whether the idea of God existing is a scary thing. Non-Christians do not believe the Bible is the word of God, just like you don't believe the Koran is. Quoting or referring to sections in the Bible to me means just as much as me quoting the Koran to you.

If I asked a Muslim "why do you believe this"? And he quoted a relevant section from the Koran, or something relevant from an Islamic scholar that would answer my question. Unless of course I didn't really want to learn why he believes what he does, but was only looking to rubbish it. In that case I would wait until he gave me a thoughtful, scholarly reply and then say "that's all nonsense, it means nothing" which would be, of course, rude.

I have at no point referenced any passage from the Bible nor asked you to explain such passages, no idea what you are talking about.

Have you not referenced the actions of God as detailed in the old testament? Maybe I have confused you with another poster.

Yes, but you have also said countless times that it is impossible to fully comprehend and understand all of the actions of God. There are an infinite number of religions in which you don't need to resort to this to answer the unknown. So why choose this religion where you have to just say "I dunno because God lol" for the unexplained?

You are now positioning me as having a "God of the gaps" position, despite my position being that given God is all knowing it is possible that things which appear evil to us, or morally incomprehensible, might have an ultimate good behind them that we cannot comprehend because of our limited perspective.

Yes, if God existed then I certainly would not expect to fully understand him (I barely understand most humans as it is). But that is not a reason for him to exist nor is it reason why you need him to exist. I do not know how how a car engine works but that does not mean that I need to resort to inventing a God to explain it.

Yet in the next breath you essentially say that you agree with me, that should God exist it is inevitable that we would not understand all the things He does because of our limited perspective?
At no stage did I say that not directly understanding why God allows things like cancer to happen is an argument for Gods existence. I have been at pains to point out that the "problem of evil", of which cancer is an example, does not discount the existence of God, and hence, is not an argument against the existence of God. It does not follow that it is an argument in favour of God.

Yes those are very nice words which as you know mean nothing to me.

What they should mean, even if you don't agree, is that there is a theological explanation for what you view as contradictory or mysterious.

Evidence.

What sort of evidence? Lets have some detail here.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

I would ask you to point out a contradiction in Christianity. The most commonly put forward, apparent contradiction is between the God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. But as I have detailed, it is an apparent contradiction which is only evident when one decontextualizes scripture and does not view the Bible in its entirety, in light of the "ending", i.e. Christ. Perhaps you have another contradiction in mind?

Most Christians do not deny that there are many contradictions in the Bible that you are not mentioning here. Rather than list all of them, here is a short video that mentions some of them in a humours context. I'm sure that as you have suggested videos for us to watch that will also oblige us by also watching this one. After doing so, do please explain how each of these in turn are not contradictions and, more importantly, why you have decided to ignore these contradictions rather than considering a different religion with less contradictions.

John Hutton wrote: »

If I asked a Muslim "why do you believe this"? And he quoted a relevant section from the Koran, or something relevant from an Islamic scholar that would answer my question. Unless of course I didn't really want to learn why he believes what he does, but was only looking to rubbish it. In that case I would wait until he gave me a thoughtful, scholarly reply and then say "that's all nonsense, it means nothing" which would be, of course, rude.

And you would accept that as an answer because you both believe in God and because you both believe what you believe because it is likely the religion that you each know the most about. You will both bond in that sense. If I asked someone with a PhD in religions studies why they believe the religion that they do (if indeed they are not atheist), I assure you that they would not reference any scripture in their response.

John Hutton wrote: »

Have you not referenced the actions of God as detailed in the old testament? Maybe I have confused you with another poster.

I don't believe I have, but am open to correction.

John Hutton wrote: »

You are now positioning me as having a "God of the gaps" position, despite my position being that given God is all knowing it is possible that things which appear evil to us, or morally incomprehensible, might have an ultimate good behind them that we cannot comprehend because of our limited perspective.

But we do not need to invent a God to explain why there is evil in the world. So in what way is your perspective not a God of the gaps perspective?

John Hutton wrote: »

Yet in the next breath you essentially say that you agree with me, that should God exist it is inevitable that we would not understand all the things He does because of our limited perspective?

I never stated that I would not think that if God existed.

John Hutton wrote: »

At no stage did I say that not directly understanding why God allows things like cancer to happen is an argument for Gods existence. I have been at pains to point out that the "problem of evil", of which cancer is an example, does not discount the existence of God, and hence, is not an argument against the existence of God. It does not follow that it is an argument in favour of God.

I was referencing Christianity, not the existence of God. The "problem of evil", e.g. allowing innocent children to suffer immense pain until they die for no apparent reason, does not need to be caused by God just because there is a God, but it does need to be caused by God if Christianity is correct. Why believe in such a religion over others?

John Hutton wrote: »

What they should mean, even if you don't agree, is that there is a theological explanation for what you view as contradictory or mysterious. .

That would not be considered an "explanation" by any non-Christian.

John Hutton wrote: »

What sort of evidence? Lets have some detail here.

You would like me to define what I would consider as evidence for the existence of God, or for Christianity being correct? I will do so once you do likewise and also state what evidence you have found.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Most Christians do not deny that there are many contradictions in the Bible that you are not mentioning here. Rather than list all of them, here is a short video that mentions some of them in a humours context. I'm sure that as you have suggested videos for us to watch that will also oblige us by also watching this one. After doing so, do please explain how each of these in turn are not contradictions and, more importantly, why you have decided to ignore these contradictions rather than considering a different religion with less contradictions.

Why don't you pick a contradiction? I mention decontextualizing quotes from scripture, and as far as I can see that is exactly what that video does, in mocking fashion. Some atheists find it hard to understand that not all Christians and fundamental protestants who view the writings of the old testament as literal, word for word truth, with no metaphor etc. See the Catholic Church.

And you would accept that as an answer because you both believe in God and because you both believe what you believe because it is likely the religion that you each know the most about. You will both bond in that sense. If I asked someone with a PhD in religions studies why they believe the religion that they do (if indeed they are not atheist), I assure you that they would not reference any scripture in their response.

Ah, the arrogance. I only believe my religion because I know nothing or little about others. I could not have come to any personal conclusions. Let me guess, you are not such an unthinker yourself are you?



If I said to you that the only reason you are not a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever is because you did not know enough about it, you would dismiss this argument.

But we do not need to invent a God to explain why there is evil in the world. So in what way is your perspective not a God of the gaps perspective?

The argument was posed that God either couldn't exist because evil existed, or that if he did he was nasty, because of the existence of evil. Neither of these propositions logically add up. But you are moving the goal posts again.

I was referencing Christianity, not the existence of God. The "problem of evil", e.g. allowing innocent children to suffer immense pain until they die for no apparent reason, does not need to be caused by God just because there is a God, but it does need to be caused by God if Christianity is correct. Why believe in such a religion over others?

Please explain why you think, that for Christianity to be true, God needs to actively cause evil or suffering?

That would not be considered an "explanation" by any non-Christian.

"Explain these apparent contradictions in what your religion preaches" "here are some explanations from scripture and our finest theologians" "That's not an explanation".



You position in this debate is disingenuous at best, because you ask for explanations for theological conundrums, but refuse to accept or listen to theological answers, by essentially saying that its all nonsense anyway.

You would like me to define what I would consider as evidence for the existence of God, or for Christianity being correct? I will do so once you do likewise and also state what evidence you have found.

Oh no, you are the one asking for evidence, I am asking what type evidence you would like.

Leroy42

Going back to the OP, is a God scary, well since we cannot know or fully understand god, coupled with him being all powerful and always right no matter what, yes then I would suggest that it should be scary.

We only know what god has chosen to tell us about himself. We cannot know if that is the truth, or even if true if that is the full story.

Could he be withholding things from us? Well, he has let us work pretty much everything about the world with do live in by ourselves, so why would we think he has told us everything about himself.

Whilst Jesus being sent down is seen as giving us a path back to god, it could just as well be seen as a signal to drive more people towards belief for whatever reason. Maybe in the battle with Satan, whomever gets more souls ends up the master of the universe and we are just pawns in that game. Maybe they need us to believe to avoid us 'looking behind the curtain'. (I am not looking for anybody to discuss this actual point, it is merely an example of the many things that maybe other that what we think).

We tend to be scared of what we don't know or don't understand. From lighting, comets, thunder etc back before they were explained. Earthquakes etc were previously believed to be the wrath of a god.

The god we believe in, the one presented to us by god himself, if taken from the POV of Jesus being the true god rather than the OT incarnation, then of course if sounds wonderful, and peaceful, kind, loving, honest, generous etc. What is not to like. A man that sacrificed himself to save the entire world. There is no greater power to feal secure in than that.

But we don't know what happened to Jesus after, we don't know (only believe) what happens to us when we pass. We believe that everything happens as part of his plan, even when that plan seems entirely unfair and unrelated to how we believe in god.

So if a person has found belief and faith, both through the word of god and or through his actions, then they will feel that god is the very opposite of scary. It is the safety and happiness and life everlasting in love an harmony.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Why don't you pick a contradiction? I mention decontextualizing quotes from scripture, and as far as I can see that is exactly what that video does, in mocking fashion. Some atheists find it hard to understand that not all Christians and fundamental protestants who view the writings of the old testament as literal, word for word truth, with no metaphor etc. See the Catholic Church.

It's not decontexualising, and it's not only the old testament that is mentioned in that video. As there are so many contradictions mentioned, how about just sticking to the numbers round, as that can't be decontextualized?

Or, better yet, actually spend time going through all of them over the next few weeks and making sure that they are simply decontextualized as you claim? If your beliefs are important to you, then I've sure it will be worth it.

John Hutton wrote: »

Ah, the arrogance. I only believe my religion because I know nothing or little about others. I could not have come to any personal conclusions. Let me guess, you are not such an unthinker yourself are you?

But based on the fact that you didn't deny it last time, it is true isn't it? You don't know anywhere near as much about as e.g. Islam as you do about Christianity? Why is that not a valid point in your eyes? I wouldn't try to debate what is the best movie in the world with someone who has watched many movies, just because I've watched only one movie but have seen trailers and quotes from many other movies.

John Hutton wrote: »

If I said to you that the only reason you are not a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever is because you did not know enough about it, you would dismiss this argument.

For me personally? Yes. For the average person, I most certainly wouldn't. There are very obvious geographical, social and temporal reasons as to why the majority of people are the religion they are. I do not believe that you have a brain that is skewed towards believing Christianity, but that humans have brains that are skewed towards following the beliefs of their society. I strongly believe that if you were adopted as a baby and brought up instead in a Muslim-dominated society, that you would instead now be Muslim. Do you believe that too, or do you believe that you would still be Christian? And what about the average person?

John Hutton wrote: »

The argument was posed that God either couldn't exist because evil existed, or that if he did he was nasty, because of the existence of evil. Neither of these propositions logically add up. But you are moving the goal posts again.

Yes, they do no logically add up, because they are not the only two options. God can still exist without him having created evil, but that is not what Christians believe (Isaiah 45:7).

John Hutton wrote: »

Please explain why you think, that for Christianity to be true, God needs to actively cause evil or suffering?

I never said that, but Christians do believe that he created it (as above). Again, why believe in such a God over the infinite number of other Gods who didn't create evil?

John Hutton wrote: »

"Explain these apparent contradictions in what your religion preaches" "here are some explanations from scripture and our finest theologians" "That's not an explanation".

Yes, I want you to explain contradictions in the scripture. And no, I do not want you to quote scripture to try to explain the mystery of God. You have combined two completely unrelated things to try to make it sound like you've made a point.

John Hutton wrote: »

You position in this debate is disingenuous at best, because you ask for explanations for theological conundrums, but refuse to accept or listen to theological answers, by essentially saying that its all nonsense anyway.

Yes because the question posed is a general one and does not require the need to focus on the scripture from any one particular religion from anyone on either side to answer it.

John Hutton wrote: »

Oh no, you are the one asking for evidence, I am asking what type evidence you would like.

You are the one asking me how I define what is true or not, I am not asking for anything.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not decontexualising, and it's not only the old testament that is mentioned in that video. As there are so many contradictions mentioned, how about just sticking to the numbers round, as that can't be decontextualized?

Or, better yet, actually spend time going through all of them over the next few weeks and making sure that they are simply decontextualized as you claim? If your beliefs are important to you, then I've sure it will be worth it.

Why not pick the "best" one and we can discuss it?

But based on the fact that you didn't deny it last time, it is true isn't it? You don't know anywhere near as much about as e.g. Islam as you do about Christianity? Why is that not a valid point in your eyes? I wouldn't try to debate what is the best movie in the world with someone who has watched many movies, just because I've watched only one movie but have seen trailers and quotes from many other movies.

But you are saying that you can only say what is the best movie if you have watched every single movie.



But if we extend the logic of your argument, who are you to say that a religion is false unless you have lived the religion?

For me personally? Yes. For the average person, I most certainly wouldn't. There are very obvious geographical, social and temporal reasons as to why the majority of people are the religion they are. I do not believe that you have a brain that is skewed towards believing Christianity, but that humans have brains that are skewed towards following the beliefs of their society. I strongly believe that if you were adopted as a baby and brought up instead in a Muslim-dominated society, that you would instead now be Muslim. Do you believe that too, or do you believe that you would still be Christian? And what about the average person?

Christianity, especially Catholicism, is most definitely counter cultural in todays Ireland. I'm pretty young and was agnostic for many years. Why am I a Christian? My siblings aren't, nor are most of the people I went to school with.

Yes, they do no logically add up, because they are not the only two options. God can still exist without him having created evil, but that is not what Christians believe (Isaiah 45:7).

You have misunderstood, see the translations: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm

Yes, I want you to explain contradictions in the scripture. And no, I do not want you to quote scripture to try to explain the mystery of God. You have combined two completely unrelated things to try to make it sound like you've made a point.

So I can't use scripture, or any theological arguments, and presumably philosophy, to answer charges against theological, philosophical and scriptural tenants?

You are the one asking me how I define what is true or not, I am not asking for anything.

It is a straightforward question. You are asking for proof that things are "true", I ask what proof you need, you say evidence, I ask what type of evidence.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Why not pick the "best" one and we can discuss it?

Why does this not seem important to you? Why do you not want to spend some time testing your faith? Christians sit at mass listening to scripture they've heard and read before, so why not also spend some time constructively ensuring that you have in fact picked the right religion? Not just to prove a point to someone arrogant and dismissive like myself, but for your own sake?

John Hutton wrote: »

But you are saying that you can only say what is the best movie if you have watched every single movie.

No, I am saying that if there was a particular movie that explained how God would like us to live our lives and what happens to us for eternity afterwards, then I would certainly want to watch as many movies as I could in my lifetime. I don't believe that such a movie exists, but you do. So why have you assumed that you've found that movie after watching only one and seeing the trailers of a few others?

John Hutton wrote: »

But if we extend the logic of your argument, who are you to say that a religion is false unless you have lived the religion?

I'm not, I am atheist. The first question you need to ask yourself is, "do you believe in God?" If the answer is no, then you are done. If it is yes, then you have additional questions you need to answer so as to pick the correct religion. So I have not dismissed a particular religion because I have not lived that religion, I have dismissed God regardless.

John Hutton wrote: »

Christianity, especially Catholicism, is most definitely counter cultural in todays Ireland. I'm pretty young and was agnostic for many years. Why am I a Christian? My siblings aren't, nor are most of the people I went to school with.

Ireland is still a Christian country. You do not honestly believe that you would be considered crazy and outside the norm to currently be an Irish Christian? If someone looked a photo of you and tried to guess your religion, one of the top guesses wouldn't be Christian?

Is there any particular reason you have deflected from answering my question? Do you believe you (and the average person) would be Muslim in my scenario?

John Hutton wrote: »

You have misunderstood, see the translations: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm

It is I who has misundersood? That's an interesting way to describe the different interpretations and translations of the Bible. What of Proverbs 16:4 then? https://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-4.htm

John Hutton wrote: »

So I can't use scripture, or any theological arguments, and presumably philosophy, to answer charges against theological, philosophical and scriptural tenants?

You are more than welcome to use any arguments that you wish, as long as you are aware that they will be dismissed by those that are not of a similar mind.

John Hutton wrote: »

It is a straightforward question. You are asking for proof that things are "true", I ask what proof you need, you say evidence, I ask what type of evidence.

Yes, and I want to make sure that I know what you mean by evidence; otherwise, I might state something that I consider evidence and you do not.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does this not seem important to you? Why do you not want to spend some time testing your faith? Christians sit at mass listening to scripture they've heard and read before, so why not also spend some time constructively ensuring that you have in fact picked the right religion? Not just to prove a point to someone arrogant and dismissive like myself, but for your own sake?

I do engage and seek to learn more, hence my request for you "best" example to discuss. This, after all, is a discussion forum.

No, I am saying that if there was a particular movie that explained how God would like us to live our lives and what happens to us for eternity afterwards, then I would certainly want to watch as many movies as I could in my lifetime. I don't believe that such a movie exists, but you do. So why have you assumed that you've found that movie after watching only one and seeing the trailers of a few others?

So, your position is thus:

1. God doesn't exist.
2. If God did exist how do you know your religion is the right one?
3. I don't care what the religion teaches or for its religious texts, this is not an acceptable answer as to why you chose that religion, because other religions have texts and teachings also, therefore:
4. All religions texts are of equal value and truth (i.e none) because God doesn't exist,
5. Hence, no matter what argument you give for picking your religion I will say it is bullsh!t and you are wrong anyway
6. Covid restrictions are really getting to me and I have nothing better to do that to have this pointless conversation

I'm not, I am atheist. The first question you need to ask yourself is, "do you believe in God?" If the answer is no, then you are done. If it is yes, then you have additional questions you need to answer so as to pick the correct religion. So I have not dismissed a particular religion because I have not lived that religion, I have dismissed God regardless.

For someone who is "done" you seems to spend a lot of time discussing these things. In that regard, you are like Herod.

Ireland is still a Christian country. You do not honestly believe that you would be considered crazy and outside the norm to currently be an Irish Christian? If someone looked a photo of you and tried to guess your religion, one of the top guesses wouldn't be Christian?

In what way is it still a Christian country? The great and the good and the media in this country are very hostile to catholicism. We live in a postmodern society.

Is there any particular reason you have deflected from answering my question? Do you believe you (and the average person) would be Muslim in my scenario?

Could well be, this has no bearing on our discussion on whether a religion is true or not. As I said, I believe there is such a thing as objective truth.

It is I who has misundersood? That's an interesting way to describe the different interpretations and translations of the Bible. What of Proverbs 16:4 then? https://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-4.htm

Yes, you have misunderstood that verse, based on a translation.

As for your other excerpt, I am not a Calvinist.

You are more than welcome to use any arguments that you wish, as long as you are aware that they will be dismissed by those that are not of a similar mind.

Then what are you wanting to discuss? You raise a theological question, and demand theology is excluded in the answer.

Yes, and I want to make sure that I know what you mean by evidence; otherwise, I might state something that I consider evidence and you do not.

It is you who said that you needed evidence, I am asking you to define what you mean by that. You have dismissed out of hand many of the points I have offered, so I am asking you what type of answer do you want? I have given you quite a bit of attention at this stage, and I do not want to go down the road again of presenting an argument or defense of my position only for you to again dismiss it on point of principal without engagement. So I want to present an answer in the format you want.

So I ask again:
1. How do you define truth or decide what is true? You answered evidence.
2. How do you define evidence?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

I do engage and seek to learn more, hence my request for you "best" example to discuss. This, after all, is a discussion forum.

So if I picked out my "best" one and you came up with what you would consider a good argument as to why it's not a contradiction, you would just ignore the rest? You wouldn't look back over the video later to test and affirm your beliefs? Why not just spend some time asserting your faith and reply with your detailed response in a few weeks? There is no rush.

John Hutton wrote: »

So, your position is thus:

1. God doesn't exist.
2. If God did exist how do you know your religion is the right one?
3. I don't care what the religion teaches or for its religious texts, this is not an acceptable answer as to why you chose that religion, because other religions have texts and teachings also, therefore:
4. All religions texts are of equal value and truth (i.e none) because God doesn't exist,
5. Hence, no matter what argument you give for picking your religion I will say it is bullsh!t and you are wrong anyway
6. Covid restrictions are really getting to me and I have nothing better to do that to have this pointless conversation

You know that's not what I believe, but you may continue to skew my words if you can't answer any of my questions directly. What I believe is:

1) Does God Exist? If no, I'm atheist, If yes, continue.
2) Do I think it matters if God exists? If no, I'm apatheist. If yes, continue.
2) Do any of the major religions make sense to me? To answer, do research and read the scriptures of the major ones to find out. If any makes sense significantly more than the others, I am that religion. More further reading may be needed to determine which denomination of that religion I am. If not, continue. (Note, common mistake made by many students here is to pick one religion and focus that one. You'll immediately receive an F grade if caught doing that.)
3) Can I find any other religion that makes sense to me or theorise my own religion that makes sense? If yes, I am that religion. If not, I'm agnostic.

John Hutton wrote: »

6. Covid restrictions are really getting to me and I have nothing better to do that to have this pointless conversation

Tempting to report you for that, but I'll ignore it.

John Hutton wrote: »

For someone who is "done" you seems to spend a lot of time discussing these things. In that regard, you are like Herod.

I like having discussions and debates, and I never claimed to be a militant atheist. Like I said before, I flip flop between atheist and apatheist frequently. Of the two of us, you seem to be the one who is "done".

John Hutton wrote: »

In what way is it still a Christian country? The great and the good and the media in this country are very hostile to catholicism. We live in a postmodern society.

You know what I meant. It is not surprising for a caucasian in Ireland to be Christian compared to something like Muslim. And you know why that is.

John Hutton wrote: »

Could well be, this has no bearing on our discussion on whether a religion is true or not. As I said, I believe there is such a thing as objective truth.

"Could well be" is a good way to deflect from answering yes or no, good job. And yes it is relevant as I was replying to your below statement

If I said to you that the only reason you are not a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever is because you did not know enough about it, you would dismiss this argument.

but you can continue to be dismissive of my valid points because they make you feel uncomfortable if you wish.

John Hutton wrote: »

Yes, you have misunderstood that verse, based on a translation.

Again, what? I have misunderstood a translation? Would you like to explain in a bit more detail?

John Hutton wrote: »

As for your other excerpt, I am not a Calvinist.

If I must. https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-10.htm

John Hutton wrote: »

It is you who said that you needed evidence, I am asking you to define what you mean by that. You have dismissed out of hand many of the points I have offered, so I am asking you what type of answer do you want?

Care to point out any of those points? Can't seem to find any.

John Hutton wrote: »

I have given you quite a bit of attention at this stage, and I do not want to go down the road again of presenting an argument or defense of my position only for you to again dismiss it on point of principal without engagement.

Wow, and you just claimed that I am dismissive? It's quite clear that you are not attempting to absorb any of my points with your continuous deflections of any of my questions that make you stop and think.

John Hutton wrote: »

So I ask again:
1. How do you define truth or decide what is true? You answered evidence.
2. How do you define evidence?

For the sake of stopping this roundabout, under scientific controls, I would want a statistical analysis done to determine if anything presented that suggests that something is true is in fact true.

antiskeptic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why does this not seem important to you? Why do you not want to spend some time testing your faith? Christians sit at mass listening to scripture they've heard and read before, so why not also spend some time constructively ensuring that you have in fact picked the right religion? Not just to prove a point to someone arrogant and dismissive like myself, but for your own sake?



No, I am saying that if there was a particular movie that explained how God would like us to live our lives and what happens to us for eternity afterwards, then I would certainly want to watch as many movies as I could in my lifetime. I don't believe that such a movie exists, but you do. So why have you assumed that you've found that movie after watching only one and seeing the trailers of a few others?



I'm not, I am atheist. The first question you need to ask yourself is, "do you believe in God?" If the answer is no, then you are done. If it is yes, then you have additional questions you need to answer so as to pick the correct religion. So I have not dismissed a particular religion because I have not lived that religion, I have dismissed God regardless.



Ireland is still a Christian country. You do not honestly believe that you would be considered crazy and outside the norm to currently be an Irish Christian? If someone looked a photo of you and tried to guess your religion, one of the top guesses wouldn't be Christian?

Is there any particular reason you have deflected from answering my question? Do you believe you (and the average person) would be Muslim in my scenario?



It is I who has misundersood? That's an interesting way to describe the different interpretations and translations of the Bible. What of Proverbs 16:4 then? https://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-4.htm



You are more than welcome to use any arguments that you wish, as long as you are aware that they will be dismissed by those that are not of a similar mind.



Yes, and I want to make sure that I know what you mean by evidence; otherwise, I might state something that I consider evidence and you do not.

One problem with the suggestion that a person investigate the claims of other religions is the presumption that a persons investigation of Christianity was the core reason for their believing. Whilst I have spent time delving into Christianity, that delving only took place after I became a Christian

Another problem is the underlying statement that a person cannot arrive at truth. Why would I investigate other religions if one was true and I found it? Where does it end with that demand I investigatr them all - that demand can have a person investigate for the rest of their lives, there being enough religions and sects to keep a man going for many life times.

As for born in a Christian nation. What about people who weren't born in Christian nations but are Christian The side step surely, will be rhat they must have had some exposure and so were brainwashed? All 'Christian Nation' does is extend the amount of brainwashing and so extend the amount of Christians. Thats a one size fits all argument which would equally play into the hands of Chrsitians: there are more Christiand precisely because more have heard the message of the gospel and believed. Its not rocket science to suppose that more people exposed to Maths will produce more mathematicians..

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

One problem with the suggestion that a person investigate the claims of other religions is the presumption that a persons investigation of Christianity was the core reason for their believing. Whilst I have spent time delving into Christianity, that delving only took place after I became a Christian

Surely it's the fact that you considered yourself a Christian before you fully understood Christianity that would be the problem there? Isn't indoctrination at a young age believed to be one of main reasons Christianity still exists today?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Another problem is the underlying statement that a person cannot arrive at truth. Why would I investigate other religions if one was true and I found it?

You shouldn't! But I'd argue that there are very few Christians that can make sense of everything they've read about Christianity and/or haven't found contradictions, and the majority of those that have either haven't studied Christianity well enough or have decided to just ignore those issues in their faith and move on.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where does it end with that demand I investigatr them all - that demand can have a person investigate for the rest of their lives, there being enough religions and sects to keep a man going for many life times.

If the religion you currently have set your eyes on suggests that your soul continues to exist forever after life, then why not spend a certain portion of your life ensuring you picked the right one? You believe that your life on Earth is only a mere blip on your total existence, so why not ensure you've picked the right one? And you don't have to go overboard if you don't personally believe it's necessary, but just picking one and choosing to ignore any inconsistencies you find in it? Even though it might explain/determine what happens to you for eternity? Seems questionable to me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for born in a Christian nation. What about people who weren't born in Christian nations but are Christian The side step surely, will be rhat they must have had some exposure and so were brainwashed?

Brainwashed is too strong of a word, but I would assume that the majority of them learned Christianity in an unbiased way rather than sitting down and studying various different religions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thats a one size fits all argument which would equally play into the hands of Chrsitians: there are more Christiand precisely because more have heard the message of the gospel and believed. Its not rocket science to suppose that more people exposed to Maths will produce more mathematicians..

I don't quite understand the point you are making here. Do you mind explaining it again?

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

So if I picked out my "best" one and you came up with what you would consider a good argument as to why it's not a contradiction, you would just ignore the rest? You wouldn't look back over the video later to test and affirm your beliefs? Why not just spend some time asserting your faith and reply with your detailed response in a few weeks? There is no rush.

Pick your best, if you want we can go on to your second best, and so on. I'm not going to spend ages compiling answers to a rapid fire 10 minute video, you are being unreasonable here. And again you are assuming that I have not given my faith serious thought and consideration. As I said before, I wallowed as an agnostic/atheist for many years, reason and logic opened my mind and heart to God, and has propelled me since.

You know that's not what I believe, but you may continue to skew my words if you can't answer any of my questions directly. What I believe is:

1) Does God Exist? If no, I'm atheist, If yes, continue.
2) Do I think it matters if God exists? If no, I'm apatheist. If yes, continue.
2) Do any of the major religions make sense to me? To answer, do research and read the scriptures of the major ones to find out. If any makes sense significantly more than the others, I am that religion. More further reading may be needed to determine which denomination of that religion I am. If not, continue. (Note, common mistake made by many students here is to pick one religion and focus that one. You'll immediately receive an F grade if caught doing that.)
3) Can I find any other religion that makes sense to me or theorise my own religion that makes sense? If yes, I am that religion. If not, I'm agnostic.

But you have dismissed the use of scriptures or theology wholesale. "Does this make sense, answers without any reference to scripture or theology please".

I like having discussions and debates, and I never claimed to be a militant atheist. Like I said before, I flip flop between atheist and apatheist frequently. Of the two of us, you seem to be the one who is "done".

But this isn't a debate - you are refusing wholesale to engage in discussion of theology or scripture to explain the truth of a religion, it seems you are only happy to use scripture to try and trip one up, and then when a scriptural explanation and context is given, you say it "means nothing". How can this type of "debate" get us anywhere?

You know what I meant. It is not surprising for a caucasian in Ireland to be Christian compared to something like Muslim. And you know why that is.

But this wasn't your original point, whenever you get pinned down on something you just moved the goalposts. The point is that it is decidedly counter cultural in Ireland today to be a Christian, yet you maintain that being a Christian in modern Ireland is just following trends in society. Do you not think, that for someone to go from my position to a Catholic, would necessarily have to involve a great deal of thinking, agonizing, discussion, research, reading et al? Or did I just wake up one morning, remember Grandad was a catholic and unthinkingly change my life in many difficult ways?

"Could well be" is a good way to deflect from answering yes or no, good job. And yes it is relevant as I was replying to your below statement

"Could well be" is an honest answer - one could not be sure.

but you can continue to be dismissive of my valid points because they make you feel uncomfortable if you wish.

I am quite comfortable, thanks. Repeatedly saying that your points are "valid" does not make your points any more powerful, or correct.

Again, what? I have misunderstood a translation? Would you like to explain in a bit more detail?

Basically it means that the wicked will get their comeuppance in the end. Not that God made evil etc.

If I must. https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-10.htm

This is a good example. Why don't you play this one out a bit further, did ultimate good or evil come from this?

Care to point out any of those points? Can't seem to find any.

Again, you dismissed out of hand any theological, philosophical or scriptural responses to questions which are theological, philosophical or scriptural.

Wow, and you just claimed that I am dismissive? It's quite clear that you are not attempting to absorb any of my points with your continuous deflections of any of my questions that make you stop and think.

It is not I that have dismissed arguments offhand. It is important to note at this stage that you have not raised a single original point that has not been made many times before, so please don't be under the impression that I have not considered the things you have mentioned.

For the sake of stopping this roundabout, under scientific controls, I would want a statistical analysis done to determine if anything presented that suggests that something is true is in fact true.

My goodness, do you apply this standard to everything? How do you "prove" the truth of mathematics? What evidence do you ask for here?

John Hutton

antiskeptic wrote: »

One problem with the suggestion that a person investigate the claims of other religions is the presumption that a persons investigation of Christianity was the core reason for their believing. Whilst I have spent time delving into Christianity, that delving only took place after I became a Christian

Another problem is the underlying statement that a person cannot arrive at truth. Why would I investigate other religions if one was true and I found it? Where does it end with that demand I investigatr them all - that demand can have a person investigate for the rest of their lives, there being enough religions and sects to keep a man going for many life times.

As for born in a Christian nation. What about people who weren't born in Christian nations but are Christian The side step surely, will be rhat they must have had some exposure and so were brainwashed? All 'Christian Nation' does is extend the amount of brainwashing and so extend the amount of Christians. Thats a one size fits all argument which would equally play into the hands of Chrsitians: there are more Christiand precisely because more have heard the message of the gospel and believed. Its not rocket science to suppose that more people exposed to Maths will produce more mathematicians..

Very good point, this is what I meant when I mentioned objective truth.

Consider the following:

2+2=4

"Did you investigate and complete all the other sums to make sure that one is true?"

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Pick your best, if you want we can go on to your second best, and so on. I'm not going to spend ages compiling answers to a rapid fire 10 minute video, you are being unreasonable here. And again you are assuming that I have not given my faith serious thought and consideration. As I said before, I wallowed as an agnostic/atheist for many years, reason and logic opened my mind and heart to God, and has propelled me since.

I gave you a round to do, not the whole video. But if your faith is not as important to you to do that, start with the first one in the numbers round and continue from there.

John Hutton wrote: »

And again you are assuming that I have not given my faith serious thought and consideration. As I said before, I wallowed as an agnostic/atheist for many years, reason and logic opened my mind and heart to God, and has propelled me since.

But, in my opinion, you haven't. I've mentioned several times that you are Christian because it is the religion you know most about, and if that wasn't the case you would have stated it at some point by now. When you decided to no longer be atheist/agnostic and let God into your life, you defaulted to Christianity without giving the other religions much due care and attention. Is my presumption true or is it not?

John Hutton wrote: »

But you have dismissed the use of scriptures or theology wholesale. "Does this make sense, answers without any reference to scripture or theology please".

Me personally? I haven't. Like I've said previously (in this thread or the feedback thread, can't remember), I've read the Bible, the Koran and the the Tipitaka. That's not much scripture, but it's more than 99.9% of people, and I would presume more than you? Why did I do this you might ask? Like I said, my answer to 1) isn't always no. I read them all due to curiosity, and dismissed them all after some thought. And because of that, I don't consider quoting anything from those three as evidence for anything. If you quoted something from a different scripture, then I might have to come up with a more constructive response.

John Hutton wrote: »

But this isn't a debate - you are refusing wholesale to engage in discussion of theology or scripture to explain the truth of a religion, it seems you are only happy to use scripture to try and trip one up, and then when a scriptural explanation and context is given, you say it "means nothing". How can this type of "debate" get us anywhere?

It is a debate, but not a very constructive one. You are correct, I have dismissed it because I find it contradictory, unpleasing, unlikely and unnecessary. And I would not state "it means nothing" if you had quoted scripture that provided evidence that Christianity is correct.

John Hutton wrote: »

But this wasn't your original point, whenever you get pinned down on something you just moved the goalposts. The point is that it is decidedly counter cultural in Ireland today to be a Christian, yet you maintain that being a Christian in modern Ireland is just following trends in society. Do you not think, that for someone to go from my position to a Catholic, would necessarily have to involve a great deal of thinking, agonizing, discussion, research, reading et al? Or did I just wake up one morning, remember Grandad was a catholic and unthinkingly change my life in many difficult ways?

Actually, this was my original point, I just had to make the example as clear as possible for you so you wouldn't try to deflect the question, but you did so anyway. My point was that social influence is a key factor in deciding the religion of the majority of people, and your continuous deflections of this point makes me think that you know that that is right.

John Hutton wrote: »

Do you not think, that for someone to go from my position to a Catholic, would necessarily have to involve a great deal of thinking, agonizing, discussion, research, reading et al? Or did I just wake up one morning, remember Grandad was a catholic and unthinkingly change my life in many difficult ways?

Yes it is of course possible, but from my own experience, unlikely. From those in my social circle, I have noticed that there is always a reason, and that reason is never because "it suddenly makes sense now". Instead, it's because e.g. a close relative has died and they don't want to accept they they'll never see them again, they are getting older themselves and don't want to accept that there's nothing after life etc. Don't know of anyone (personally) who became Christian because they just read the Bible and went "oh! you know, this didn't make much sense to me when I was younger, but it sure does now!"

John Hutton wrote: »

"Could well be" is an honest answer - one could not be sure.

You honestly aren't sure about that? Why is that? Because you don't believe that the average person in the world is the religion they are primarily because of where they grew up? Why then is the dominant religion in the majority of countries the same as it was the generation before? How does that not suggest that the religion a baby ends up choosing as an adult is strongly dependent on its geographic location when growing up?

John Hutton wrote: »

Basically it means that the wicked will get their comeuppance in the end. Not that God made evil etc.

And I have misunderstood that? Or you have chosen to interpret it that way because the other way makes you feel uncomfortable?

John Hutton wrote: »

This is a good example. Why don't you play this one out a bit further, did ultimate good or evil come from this? ?

This is your area of expertise, not mine. You tell me.

John Hutton wrote: »

Again, you dismissed out of hand any theological, philosophical or scriptural responses to questions which are theological, philosophical or scriptural.

And I explained why many posts ago, and that I would continue to do just that many posts ago. And yet you continue to reply? Obviously winning an argument is important to you.

John Hutton wrote: »

It is not I that have dismissed arguments offhand. It is important to note at this stage that you have not raised a single original point that has not been made many times before, so please don't be under the impression that I have not considered the things you have mentioned.

Are you suggesting that you have raised original thoughts in this thread? Really?

John Hutton wrote: »

My goodness, do you apply this standard to everything? How do you "prove" the truth of mathematics? What evidence do you ask for here?

Yes I do, I am astrophysicist. In my undergrad Intro to Analysis class for example it took us three weeks to prove that 1+1=2. I know perfectly well how to prove things in mathematics, thank you for asking.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Very good point, this is what I meant when I mentioned objective truth.

Consider the following:

2+2=4

"Did you investigate and complete all the other sums to make sure that one is true?"

You're condensing the complexity of Christianity into an easy sum that doesn't have any underlying contradictions or interpretations? Good comparison, well done. You know what? I take back my point about you not being original in this thread, as I doubt anyone before has ever suggested "why am I certain Christianity is correct even though it contains some debatable inaccuracies and contradictions and I only know the barebones of a few other religions? Well, why are you so certain that 1+1=2 when you haven't checked all the other possible sums? Checkmate!" :rolleyes:

John Hutton

An astrophysicist who is an apatheist. Very interesting.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

An astrophysicist who is an apatheist. Very interesting.

I am currently an atheist, thank you for asking. Good, detailed response. And why do you consider that strange? Seems expected to me.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

I gave you a round to do, not the whole video. But if your faith is not as important to you to do that, start with the first one in the numbers round and continue from there.



But, in my opinion, you haven't. I've mentioned several times that you are Christian because it is the religion you know most about, and if that wasn't the case you would have stated it at some point by now. When you decided to no longer be atheist/agnostic and let God into your life, you defaulted to Christianity without giving the other religions much due care and attention. Is my presumption true or is it not?



Me personally? I haven't. Like I've said previously (in this thread or the feedback thread, can't remember), I've read the Bible, the Koran and the the Tipitaka. That's not much scripture, but it's more than 99.9% of people, and I would presume more than you? Why did I do this you might ask? Like I said, my answer to 1) isn't always no. I read them all due to curiosity, and dismissed them all after some thought. And because of that, I don't consider quoting anything from those three as evidence for anything. If you quoted something from a different scripture, then I might have to come up with a more constructive response.



It is a debate, but not a very constructive one. You are correct, I have dismissed it because I find it contradictory, unpleasing, unlikely and unnecessary. And I would not state "it means nothing" if you had quoted scripture that provided evidence that Christianity is correct.



Actually, this was my original point, I just had to make the example as clear as possible for you so you wouldn't try to deflect the question, but you did so anyway. My point was that social influence is a key factor in deciding the religion of the majority of people, and your continuous deflections of this point makes me think that you know that that is right.



Yes it is of course possible, but from my own experience, unlikely. From those in my social circle, I have noticed that there is always a reason, and that reason is never because "it suddenly makes sense now". Instead, it's because e.g. a close relative has died and they don't want to accept they they'll never see them again, they are getting older themselves and don't want to accept that there's nothing after life etc. Don't know of anyone (personally) who became Christian because they just read the Bible and went "oh! you know, this didn't make much sense to me when I was younger, but it sure does now!"



You honestly aren't sure about that? Why is that? Because you don't believe that the average person in the world is the religion they are primarily because of where they grew up? Why then is the dominant religion in the majority of countries the same as it was the generation before? How does that not suggest that the religion a baby ends up choosing as an adult is strongly dependent on its geographic location when growing up?



And I have misunderstood that? Or you have chosen to interpret it that way because the other way makes you feel uncomfortable?



This is your area of expertise, not mine. You tell me.



And I explained why many posts ago, and that I would continue to do just that many posts ago. And yet you continue to reply? Obviously winning an argument is important to you.



Are you suggesting that you have raised original thoughts in this thread? Really?



Yes I do, I am astrophysicist. In my undergrad Intro to Analysis class for example it took us three weeks to prove that 1+1=2. I know perfectly well how to prove things in mathematics, thank you for asking.

No, no original points would be necessary would they?

You rightly got me with the maths thing alright, I must say. Haha

But the point remains, if we are talking about concepts, morality, justice, love, things like this - statistical analysis will not get you far. You need philosophy, you need logical deduction, you need theology and things like these to ultimately understand the world around us. Not everything can be proven in concrete terms on a whiteboard. And if you need to apply statistical analysis to everything, to establish is anything is true, I dont know how you get out of bed nor succumb to an existential crisis.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

I am currently an atheist, thank you for asking. Good, detailed response. And why do you consider that strange? Seems expected to me.

Maybe I am wrong, but would you not have a professional interest in the origins of the universe?

Perhaps I misunderstand what an apatheist believes, it was explained to me previously that basically it means one does not care if there is a God or not because it doesn't matter.

If God exists it would be the ultimate answer to the existence of the universe, I dont understand why you wouldn't think this answer would matter at all, but would rather seek to arrive at a definitive position, or at least have an open mind, rather than deciding you dont care.

But maybe I have apatheist wrong?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

No, no original points would be necessary would they?

You rightly got me with the maths thing alright, I must say. Haha

I had a feeling you would think that would be a funny comparison after reading back, I think it's getting a bit late in the night for both of us! :pac:

John Hutton wrote: »

But the point remains, if we are talking about concepts, morality, justice, love, things like this - statistical analysis will not get you far. You need philosophy, you need logical deduction, you need theology and things like these to ultimately understand the world around us.

In your religious mindset, you do. In my mindset, you just need neurology.

John Hutton wrote: »

Not everything can be proven in concrete terms on a whiteboard.

Again, in your opinion, no. In my opinion, yes. There are many things in the past that we thought couldn't be proven with a whiteboard and that needed philosophy etc., but it turned out that we could.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Maybe I am wrong, but would you not have a professional interest in the origins of the universe?

Perhaps I misunderstand what an apatheist believes, it was explained to me previously that basically it means one does not care if there is a God or not because it doesn't matter.

If God exists it would be the ultimate answer to the existence of the universe, I dont understand why you wouldn't think this answer would matter at all, but would rather seek to arrive at a definitive position, or at least have an open mind, rather than deciding you dont care.

There are various definitions, and I myself changed what the definition was several times when I was one. But usually it would be on the lines of, "if God does exist, it wouldn't matter if he does nor would he care nor judge us if we did or did not try to find out."

It makes perfect sense to me how something (like the Big Bang) comes from nothing. I did not have that understanding until the last year of my undergrad when I did some quantum physics modules, but since then I do I have no need to invoke the existence of a God to explain why the universe exists.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

You're condensing the complexity of Christianity into an easy sum that doesn't have any underlying contradictions or interpretations? Good comparison, well done. You know what? I take back my point about you not being original in this thread, as I doubt anyone before has ever suggested "why am I certain Christianity is correct even though it contains some debatable inaccuracies and contradictions and I only know the barebones of a few other religions? Well, why are you so certain that 1+1=2 when you haven't checked all the other possible sums? Checkmate!" :rolleyes:

The point is, very badly made no doubt, is that when one discovers truth, you may stop looking. And the truth of a faith can only be discovered through practicing it.

You keep saying there is contradictions, but the point I am making is that Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has over the course of 2000 years supplied answers to apparent contradictions, through scripture and the churches magisterium.

If we go back to the beginning of this portion of our discussion it centred around the problem of evil, and your dissatisfaction with my position that God may allow evil to happen in order for a greater good to happen, or to avoid a worse evil. Thisnis obvious in some ways, and in others, such as child cancer, less so. I posited that given that God knows everything it is logically possible that terrible things which happen for which we can see no reason or good coming from, may actually have a reason behind them for our benefit, which can only be comprehended if we too knew everything. This is a logical position, and these mysteries do not fatally undermine christianity in the way you seem to think it does.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

I had a feeling you would think that would be a funny comparison after reading back, I think it's getting a bit late in the night for both of us! :pac:



In your religious mindset, you do. In my mindset, you just need neurology.



Again, in your opinion, no. In my opinion, yes. There are many things in the past that we thought couldn't be proven with a whiteboard and that needed philosophy etc., but it turned out that we could.

Ok that's fair enough if you think that philosophy etc is pointless and unecessary to understand our lives and world. I think that the reduction of everything to statistical analysis is pretty scary! (To return to the OP)

I do not know if you are married or in a relationship, but if you are married, how did you accept the truth of the fact that you love your partner? If you managed to prove this on a whiteboard I would very much like to know how!

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

There are various definitions, and I myself changed what the definition was several times when I was one. But usually it would be on the lines of, "if God does exist, it wouldn't matter if he does nor would he care nor judge us if we did or did not try to find out."

It makes perfect sense to me how something (like the Big Bang) comes from nothing. I did not have that understanding until the last year of my undergrad when I did some quantum physics modules, but since then I do I have no need to invoke the existence of a God to explain why the universe exists.

Are the explanations for what caused, or came before the Big Bang not theoretical?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

The point is, very badly made no doubt, is that when one discovers truth, you may stop looking. And the truth of a faith can only be discovered through practicing it.

But is that sensible? How do you know that there is not another religion that you would find equally as truthful? And what if the God in that other religion wants you to live your life completely differently?

John Hutton wrote: »

You keep saying there is contradictions, but the point I am making is that Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has over the course of 2000 years supplied answers to apparent contradictions, through scripture and the churches magisterium.

Whereas I would say instead say that that is through convenient changes of interpretations and translations of the Bible. And I would also point out that many impartial people would say, even with this, that a large number of contradictions still exist.

John Hutton wrote: »

If we go back to the beginning of this portion of our discussion it centred around the problem of evil, and your dissatisfaction with my position that God may allow evil to happen in order for a greater good to happen, or to avoid a worse evil. Thisnis obvious in some ways, and in others, such as child cancer, less so. I posited that given that God knows everything it is logically possible that terrible things which happen for which we can see no reason or good coming from, may actually have a reason behind them for our benefit, which can only be comprehended if we too knew everything. This is a logical position, and these mysteries do not fatally undermine christianity in the way you seem to think it does.

They do not fatally undermine it, they merely beg the question as to why one would choose to believe in such a religion when there are many more religions with less contradictions that do not necessitate that God allows evil to happen.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Ok that's fair enough if you think that philosophy etc is pointless and unecessary to understand our lives and world. I think that the reduction of everything to statistical analysis is pretty scary! (To return to the OP)

I do not know if you are married or in a relationship, but if you are married, how did you accept the truth of the fact that you love your partner? If you managed to prove this on a whiteboard I would very much like to know how!

Good lord, can you imagine if I was married?! That poor woman!

But if I was, I would have used this equation to determine it.

Joking aside, my suggestion of a whiteboard was of course an oversimplification. I instead would believe that I loved my wife due to strong neurological impulses that I had never felt before.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Are the explanations for what caused, or came before the Big Bang not theoretical?

Do you mean the scientific definition of the word theoretical or the everyday definition? Because they are almost opposites!

John Hutton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good lord, can you imagine if I was married?! That poor woman!

But if I was, I would have used this equation to determine it.

Joking aside, my suggestion of a whiteboard was of course an oversimplification. I instead would believe that I loved my wife due to strong neurological impulses that I had never felt before.

I suspect if either of us were married our staying up late on forums would be heavily frowned upon.

Ok, and would that be a good enough reason to accept that you were truly in love, was the person for you, and to go get married, with all that entails?

Faith is a bit like that, it is something deep down, a truth that is evident, plus as you practice it, you "get something back" in terms of grace etc. Based on our conversation I dont expect you to understand it, but just as you cant prove love, or prove objective beauty, there are some things you just know to be true.

Personally, there was no tragedy or anything like that in my "conversion" but I think that everyone searches for meaning in life - and the ultimate end of this search is God. And when you find it, you know it.

I dont think it is really possible to argue that my religion is the right one with an atheist. Any of the arguments I would use with a Muslim, a Jew, a Mormon, a protestant, would essentially be meaningless to you if you cant get over the first hurdle (which is the biggest)

John Hutton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you mean the scientific definition of the word theoretical or the everyday definition? Because they are almost opposites!

If you thought there was no cause of the universe, or cause of the scenario that brought about the universe etc etc (you get my point) and can definitively prove this, why would you not be a confirmed atheist?

antiskeptic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Surely it's the fact that you considered yourself a Christian before you fully understood Christianity that would be the problem there?

Not really. You don't have to know very much about the workings of gravity in order to fall off a cliff. On the other hand your intellectual investigations into the workings of gravity may well have the same result. I think CS Lewis fell by that route. But there are many many ways to fall.

If you suppose Christianity necessarily entered intellectually then you might hold as you hold.

Sure, I found out a lot afterwards. After the wrapper was off I ate of the intellectual sweet and found out why I fell .. to mix metaphors

Isn't indoctrination at a young age believed to be one of main reasons Christianity still exists today?

Insofar as you are talking of that parallel phenomenon, the Christian Empire, then yes, I agree. Most Irish people who identify as Christians are, I would guess, the product of that indoctrination. And that empire, like all empires, is crumbling.

But thats the Christian Empire. Not Christianity.

You shouldn't! But I'd argue that there are very few Christians that can make sense of everything they've read about Christianity and/or haven't found contradictions, and the majority of those that have either haven't studied Christianity well enough or have decided to just ignore those issues in their faith and move on.

Thats not untrue. But then again the same could be said of scientists and the natural world. Much known but so much to know. That a person never gets to the end osn't of itself a problem. And for many, what they do know of the natural world is enough for them to navigate it successfully. They don't want or need to become scientists.

Me, I'm interested in this question of OT and NT God. The wrathful tyrant and the gentle lamb. Its not a topic many Christian talk about and its never addressed on a Sunday. You'll hear much from the Old Testament ... but never a quote where God instructs the slaying of nations.

But its okay if someone doesn't want to go there. They might, I suspect, be left with shades of concern - a friend of mine who is a believer still reckons God is displeased (in an OT way) with his drinking and drug taking, all the while believing in a God who died for him and a God who he will see in a place where his every tear will be wiped away. He lives a cognitive dissonance but the overweighing sense he has, maybe 60/40 is God as Jesus.

That's not enough for me so I look for answers. And usually they are to be found.

If the religion you currently have set your eyes on suggests that your soul continues to exist forever after life, then why not spend a certain portion of your life ensuring you picked the right one? You believe that your life on Earth is only a mere blip on your total existence, so why not ensure you've picked the right one? And you don't have to go overboard if you don't personally believe it's necessary, but just picking one and choosing to ignore any inconsistencies you find in it? Even though it might explain/determine what happens to you for eternity? Seems questionable to me.

My mam was like that, searching and searching. She became a Christian. I didn't search in religion at all and a few years after her I became a Christian. All well into adulthood btw.

You could say she bought many lotto ticketd and won, whereas I won on a single purchase.

The point remains: you don't need to search the world to arrive at truth. If you arrive after searching long and hard or stumbling over it (seemingly) then so be it.

Besides, Christianity is something that slots a life puzzle into place. Life itself is the search even if you don't know it. It raises problems, worries, questions, suggests answers. 'Who am I' is unconsciously mal-answered by "I am a student, an engineer, a husband, a father". When you stumble on what you actually are "a child of God" the puzzle clicks into place. The search is there and its not really about religion per se.

Its the 'fit' of the answer, the rightness of it compared to all the answers you tried up to then which helps convince.

They trained bank tellers to distinguish fake notes by having them count real ones. The feel of real was such that a fake passed through was instantly recognisable. In opposite fashion, when you handle a life times worth of fake answers to questions of meaning, purpose, origin, destination, right and wrong ... the truth just stands out like a beacon on a hill. Overwhelming difference.

Later..

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Ok that's fair enough if you think that philosophy etc is pointless and unecessary to understand our lives and world. I think that the reduction of everything to statistical analysis is pretty scary! (To return to the OP)

Scary in the sense of being insanely boring, incomplete and unsatisfying. I doubt there are many people out there who are so obsessed with reductionism that they view all of life as an amalgam of statistics and analyses. In my humble opinion, being infinitesimal, both physically and intellectually, on the grand scale of things, there will always be space for wonder and the unknown. I think it is this sense of wonder and the desire to explore that is a major attraction for many towards both the sciences and the arts.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Ok, and would that be a good enough reason to accept that you were truly in love, was the person for you, and to go get married, with all that entails?

Faith is a bit like that, it is something deep down, a truth that is evident, plus as you practice it, you "get something back" in terms of grace etc. Based on our conversation I dont expect you to understand it, but just as you cant prove love, or prove objective beauty, there are some things you just know to be true.

Well I believe that the concept of love is a human construct, just like God.

John Hutton wrote: »

Personally, there was no tragedy or anything like that in my "conversion" but I think that everyone searches for meaning in life - and the ultimate end of this search is God. And when you find it, you know it.

I don't believe that there is any meaning in life and I doubt most of my social circle does. I think that many people are religious because they want their life to have meaning and are afraid of what it means if it doesn't, not because there is evidence that there life has meaning.

John Hutton wrote: »

I dont think it is really possible to argue that my religion is the right one with an atheist. Any of the arguments I would use with a Muslim, a Jew, a Mormon, a protestant, would essentially be meaningless to you if you cant get over the first hurdle (which is the biggest)

Of course it is, theist/atheist debates occur all the time and people often leave with a deeper understanding of both sides. You have my last long response to reply to, off you go!

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not really. You don't have to know very much about the workings of gravity in order to fall off a cliff. On the other hand your intellectual investigations into the workings of gravity may well have the same result. I think CS Lewis fell by that route. But there are many many ways to fall.

Yes but you have option of not accepting Christianity just because you learned about it. Do I have the option of not falling when I jump off a cliff?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Insofar as you are talking of that parallel phenomenon, the Christian Empire, then yes, I agree. Most Irish people who identify as Christians are, I would guess, the product of that indoctrination. And that empire, like all empires, is crumbling.

But thats the Christian Empire. Not Christianity.

But would you be Christian now if the Christian Empire did not exist?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thats not untrue. But then again the same could be said of scientists and the natural world. Much known but so much to know. That a person never gets to the end osn't of itself a problem. And for many, what they do know of the natural world is enough for them to navigate it successfully. They don't want or need to become scientists.

But that's a bit different isn't it? There's is still more to learn with science because we are still making gradual progress in understanding different areas of scientific research. Progress with Christianity in the 21st century is simply changing the interpretation of scripture in different ways so as to fit in with modern society.

antiskeptic wrote: »

They trained bank tellers to distinguish fake notes by having them count real ones. The feel of real was such that a fake passed through was instantly recognisable. In opposite fashion, when you handle a life times worth of fake answers to questions of meaning, purpose, origin, destination, right and wrong ... the truth just stands out like a beacon on a hill. Overwhelming difference.

Yes, but how do they know what a real banknote is? Because they already have examples of such a real banknote. If they never saw a real banknote nor knew what it looked like, they would analyse as many banknotes as they could before settling on the one(s) that feels the most authentic.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any meaning in life and I doubt most of my social circle does. I think that many people are religious because they want their life to have meaning and are afraid of what it means if it doesn't, not because there is evidence that there life has meaning.

You may want to quantify 'meaning' there. For example, I don't consider life has any single, overarching meaning. Rather, I find life meaningful, but those meanings are many and may be brief or carry on for an extended period of time. For me, life being meaningful is a byproduct of life being purposeful, which is something in common with many Christians, albeit the purposes may be somewhat different.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

You may want to quantify 'meaning' there. For example, I don't consider life has any single, overarching meaning. Rather, I find life meaningful, but those meanings are many and may be brief or carry on for an extended period of time. For me, life being meaningful is a byproduct of life being purposeful, which is something in common with many Christians, albeit the purposes may be somewhat different.

I believe that I can find enjoyment in life by having my dopamine levels rise when on a roller-coaster, in love etc., but I don't believe my life has any meaning on the grand scale. I believe that we are simply a natural by-product of evolution and that humans think that we are important mainly just because we are the first self-aware species and we therefore must be part of "God's plan".

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Scary in the sense of being insanely boring, incomplete and unsatisfying. I doubt there are many people out there who are so obsessed with reductionism that they view all of life as an amalgam of statistics and analyses. In my humble opinion, being infinitesimal, both physically and intellectually, on the grand scale of things, there will always be space for wonder and the unknown. I think it is this sense of wonder and the desire to explore that is a major attraction for many towards both the sciences and the arts.

This viewpoint brings us back again to a materialist understanding of the world and all that entails - including implications for free will. Scary stuff, nihilism.



I agree that man has what seems to be an inbuilt need and desire to "wonder and explore" - this, if carried to its end, is a manifestation of the search for God.

o1s1n

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that I can find enjoyment in life by having my dopamine levels rise when on a roller-coaster, in love etc., but I don't believe my life has any meaning on the grand scale. I believe that we are simply a natural by-product of evolution and that humans think that we are important mainly just because we are the first self-aware species and we therefore must be part of "God's plan".

'meaning' is relative to one's own scalable world around them IMO. You give meaning to and get meaning from those around you that you impact every day. That's where it ends.

In a similar way an ant queen gives meaning to her hive, but is irrelevant to us. Or if you go on the macro side of things, the earth really has no meaningful impact on a universal scale - as amazing a place as it is.

Religous folks seem to think their own meaning somehow transcends the above structures. I have very long conversations with my religious father who constantly counters with things like 'surely this can't be it?' or 'but humans are so incredible and meaningful' - simply cannot seem to grasp the concept that we are irrelevant on a universal scale.

Rather than seeing that we can take meaning from the life around us and those we interact with, it seems to be that if you have no meaning on a grand scale you are somehow verging on nihilism - which couldn't be further from the truth.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that I can find enjoyment in life by having my dopamine levels rise when on a roller-coaster, in love etc., but I don't believe my life has any meaning on the grand scale. I believe that we are simply a natural by-product of evolution and that humans think that we are important mainly just because we are the first self-aware species and we therefore must be part of "God's plan".

The only issue there is that you're describing the physiological mechanism that induces the specific feeling but that is of limited value in describing the feeling itself nor how we can or should attain it. For example, I might get a mad rush by tearing down a hill on a bicycle having spent a long time slogging up that hill leading up to that. Similarly, I might get a mad rush by injecting heroin into my arm. Only one of these things is meaningful and derives from a purposeful existence. Just because I don't consider myself part of "God's plan" doesn't mean I don't have a plan of my own

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

This viewpoint brings us back again to a materialist understanding of the world and all that entails - including implications for free will. Scary stuff, nihilism.



I agree that man has what seems to be an inbuilt need and desire to "wonder and explore" - this, if carried to its end, is a manifestation of the search for God.

The search for God for Christians perhaps, enlightenment for Buddhists, or understanding for scientists. A Taoist might suggest that life is about the journey rather than the destination and in that much I'd tend to agree.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

The only issue there is that you're describing the physiological mechanism that induces the specific feeling but that is of limited value in describing the feeling itself nor how we can or should attain it. For example, I might get a mad rush by tearing down a hill on a bicycle having spent a long time slogging up that hill leading up to that. Similarly, I might get a mad rush by injecting heroin into my arm. Only one of these things is meaningful and derives from a purposeful existence. Just because I don't consider myself part of "God's plan" doesn't mean I don't have a plan of my own

To me, neither of them has "meaning" if I understand your definition of the word. The former is simply a reward for my hard work. Birds spends a long time building their nests etc. and also have an increase in dopamine levels upon looking on their completed work, but Christians don't believe they go to heaven. So why the need to invent a God to explain why my hard work has "meaning" but not theirs?

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

To me, neither of them has "meaning" if I understand your definition of the word. The former is simply a reward for my hard work. Birds spends a long time building their nests etc. and also have an increase in dopamine levels upon looking on their completed work, but Christians don't believe they go to heaven. So why the need to invent a God to explain why my hard work has "meaning" but not theirs?

In my opinion, on the basis that meaning is subjective. If religious people consider God gives meaning to their hard work, that is something between them and their God. If I find meaning in slogging up a hill on a bike and tearing back down again, that has meaning to me, not just in the rush of going down hill but in achieving the goal of making it up that hill. The problem as I see it arises when we try to ascribe meaning to someone else's life, e.g. the assertion that we are all here for a reason. I would suggest that our reasons and the meanings we draw from them are our own.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

But is that sensible? How do you know that there is not another religion that you would find equally as truthful? And what if the God in that other religion wants you to live your life completely differently?

Again we come back to objective truth.

Your argument here is essentially that all religions are equal (i.e. equally wrong) and that none of them can be true, hence you cannot legitimately pick one. This makes perfect sense, if one accepts the basis of the argument (i.e none can be true), but I don't accept the premise of this argument.

Whereas I would say instead say that that is through convenient changes of interpretations and translations of the Bible. And I would also point out that many impartial people would say, even with this, that a large number of contradictions still exist.

The Bible was not written in English, and it was written a long time ago. It is natural that revisions of translations are required, and that words that meant one thing when it was written have experienced a change in meaning or emphasis over time. It is also necessary to try and interpret it the way it would have been interpreted by the society in which it was written. This is a perfectly normal and acceptable approach to apply to any ancient text.

But to return again to a point I made earlier, the Bible is a book to be viewed in its entirety, a gradual roll out of revelation culminating in Jesus Christ and the Crucifixion. This "ending" colors and changes all that went before, and ties it all together. Its like when you read a mystery book, the final twist at the end when all is revealed gives new meaning to the rest of the book when you read again - things that seemed odd etc. on the first reading now make sense and you can see how it all makes sense and fits together.

But again, this is you having your cake and eating it. You pick one translation of the Bible as a "default" correct one and ask for an explanation of a contradiction. When one is given based on Biblical translation and interpretation you then say that this is a "convenient change of interpretation and translation". This supposes that your interpretation and translation of the Bible is the default and correct one.

It would be more correct for you to say that there can be contradictions in the Bible depending on how one reads it. That would be perfectly correct. In fact, this is one of the theological reasons why the Catholic Church and its magestirium exists, that you can't just pick up the Bible and have at it in isolation or with no guidance in interpretation. (Protestant brothers might disagree )

They do not fatally undermine it, they merely beg the question as to why one would choose to believe in such a religion when there are many more religions with less contradictions that do not necessitate that God allows evil to happen.

But evil does happen. And if God is all powerful, all knowing etc. then that is in his wheelhouse and an explanation is needed. It can only be avoided if say that God exists, but is not God.

To me, my religion is consistent. There are mysteries yes, but it is not like these are gaping holes over which one must leap, and where there are these mysteries, we know why they are mysteries.

An assumption seems to underpin your posts which asserts that Christianity cannot be consistently logical or make sense, and that believers must either not know about, or ignore, massive and difficult contradictions. But this is not the case. Any of the apparent contradictions you have pointed out are not new, and have not been hidden for the past 2000 years. Yet, despite this, billions of people, including many great minds, theologians and philosophers, have found Christianity logically consistent and whole. Now, you might say that this does not mean in and of itself that it is true, and I take this point, but it remains that Christianity is, for many, not the bundle of confusing contradictions you seem to think it is.

This is a good time to return to your earlier point in light of the above:

And I would also point out that many impartial people would say, even with this, that a large number of contradictions still exist.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

In my opinion, on the basis that meaning is subjective. If religious people consider God gives meaning to their hard work, that is something between them and their God. If I find meaning in slogging up a hill on a bike and tearing back down again, that has meaning to me, not just in the rush of going down hill but in achieving the goal of making it up that hill. The problem as I see it arises when we try to ascribe meaning to someone else's life, e.g. the assertion that we are all here for a reason. I would suggest that our reasons and the meanings we draw from them are our own.

In my opinion, the only reason our brain assigns any "meaning" to achieving our goals is because it's an evolutionary benefit. Hard work -> reward -> an improvement physiologically or mentally etc. -> more appealing to the opposite sex -> more likely to reproduce.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

In my opinion, the only reason our brain assigns any "meaning" to achieving our goals is because it's an evolutionary benefit. Hard work -> reward -> an improvement physiologically or mentally etc. -> more appealing to the opposite sex -> more likely to reproduce.

I suspect while that is true insofar as it goes, it is an oversimplification to the extent it is not useful in answering many more complex questions relating to the human mind. For example, from an evolutionary perspective, why would someone choose to commit suicide? I think once you look at many more complex aspects to human behaviour, trying to reduce to a simple physiological or neurological response simply isn't going to work. It is a bit like trying to explain a complex piece of computer software in terms of electrons moving around a circuit. When dealing with complexity we need to work on the basis of much higher levels of abstraction.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Again we come back to objective truth.

Your argument here is essentially that all religions are equal (i.e. equally wrong) and that none of them can be true, hence you cannot legitimately pick one. This makes perfect sense, if one accepts the basis of the argument (i.e none can be true), but I don't accept the premise of this argument.

I don't believe that at all. I believe that some religions have far less contradictions than others, and I have stated that many times.

John Hutton wrote: »

The Bible was not written in English, and it was written a long time ago. It is natural that revisions of translations are required, and that words that meant one thing when it was written have experienced a change in meaning or emphasis over time.

Really? That doesn't seem to be true for text that I know of. We haven't found new meaning in work written by Shakespeare, nor of work work written in a different language at that time.

John Hutton wrote: »

It is also necessary to try and interpret it the way it would have been interpreted by the society in which it was written. This is a perfectly normal and acceptable approach to apply to any ancient text.

Why is that exactly? That seems very counter-intuitive and convenient. We should interpret the word of God in a way that suited the society at the time, rather than try to understand what God actually meant?

John Hutton wrote: »

But to return again to a point I made earlier, the Bible is a book to be viewed in its entirety, a gradual roll out of revelation culminating in Jesus Christ and the Crucifixion. This "ending" colors and changes all that went before, and ties it all together. Its like when you read a mystery book, the final twist at the end when all is revealed gives new meaning to the rest of the book when you read again - things that seemed odd etc. on the first reading now make sense and you can see how it all makes sense and fits together.

But again, this is you having your cake and eating it. You pick one translation of the Bible as a "default" correct one and ask for an explanation of a contradiction. When one is given based on Biblical translation and interpretation you then say that this is a "convenient change of interpretation and translation". This supposes that your interpretation and translation of the Bible is the default and correct one.

It would be more correct for you to say that there can be contradictions in the Bible depending on how one reads it. That would be perfectly correct. In fact, this is one of the theological reasons why the Catholic Church and its magestirium exists, that you can't just pick up the Bible and have at it in isolation or with no guidance in interpretation. (Protestant brothers might disagree )

But of the infinite number of religions that exist, very few require the need to interpret scripture in different ways as they see fit so as to come to a religion that seems nice and acceptable to them. So why choose this one over ones where there is less doubt and more certainty, and that is equally as pleasing?

John Hutton wrote: »

But evil does happen. And if God is all powerful, all knowing etc. then that is in his wheelhouse and an explanation is needed. It can only be avoided if say that God exists, but is not God.

Yes, but that it is not necessary. God can still exist without him allowing evil to happen. There may be an equal tussle between a God that created good and a devil that can be created evil, there may be a God that created good and evil but does not observe or judge how we deal with it etc. You are so absorbed in Christianity that any religion which doesn't simply have a single, all-powerful God that looks over us is strange and weird to you.

John Hutton wrote: »

To me, my religion is consistent. There are mysteries yes, but it is not like these are gaping holes over which one must leap

In your opinion, yes. To me and the majority of people in the world (as they are not Christian), no.

John Hutton wrote: »

and where there are these mysteries, we know why they are mysteries.

We do? Do tell us why we have these mysteries. We used to believe that it was mysterious that then Sun would go away at night and assumed that God was behind it (or even that God was the Sun), but we now have a perfectly reasonable explanation. Which mysteries are you referring in which we know why they are mysteries?

John Hutton wrote: »

An assumption seems to underpin your posts which asserts that Christianity cannot be consistently logical or make sense, and that believers must either not know about, or ignore, massive and difficult contradictions. But this is not the case. Any of the apparent contradictions you have pointed out are not new, and have not been hidden for the past 2000 years. Yet, despite this, billions of people, including many great minds, theologians and philosophers, have found Christianity logically consistent and whole. Now, you might say that this does not mean in and of itself that it is true, and I take this point, but it remains that Christianity is, for many, not the bundle of confusing contradictions you seem to think it is.

Yes, and the reason it has exists over 2000 years is because it meets the two important criteria for any religion to last over a long period of time:
1) Indoctrinating the young into the religion before they even understand what the word religion is. This will ensure that those who do not actively research other possibilities will continue to indoctrinate their young etc. and will keep the cycle going.
2) Have a level of fear associated with that religion, such that if they do not believe and follow this religion, they will suffer the consequences in e.g. the afterlife, thereby making it difficult and scary for people to leave.

John Hutton wrote: »

but it remains that Christianity is, for many, not the bundle of confusing contradictions you seem to think it is.

It's not a bundle of contradictions to the majority of Christian as the overwhelming majority of Christians have not even read the Bible in full. And, of those that have, there are still many that accept that there are contradictions. Adding that to those in the world that are not Christian, those that do not believe that Bible is bundle of contradictions is a severe minority.

Side note: In my opinion, the next important human evolutionary trait will be the following: when the average human has evolved to a level of intelligence to say to themselves, "you know, I don't understand how or why God doesn't exist, but the vast majority of "intellects" seem to think that way, or at least that my religion is false. So maybe I should consider that that is in fact the most likely possibility, even though I can't fully grasp it". That will results in a massive change in our way of life. You can already see shades of it happening in places like Scandanavia, but it unfortunately seems unlikely that it will happen on a global scale in my lifetime.