The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

liamw

Jakkass, the point is that WE DON'T KNOW so for you to assume there was a single creator is fallacious in itself, but for you to go massively further and claim that you know that it was your exact Christian God is just ridiculously improbable. It could just as easily be the FSM.

Now here's an interesting video. The theory of quantum thermal flucuations, and an aggregrate of zero energy in the universe tell us that maybe the universe was 'created' from 'nothing'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Oh, and he addresses your question of 'why is there something rather than nothing' at 40-41mins

philologos

monosharp:

It's evidenced every day on these fora. Christians are more willing to admit that there is an emotional part and a rational part in why they believe in God. Atheists however are not willing to do this as much with their position. That sure makes it look that people are ashamed of discussing what could be emotionally driving their decisions as well as rationally driving them.

monosharp wrote: »

Which proves absolutely nothing.

You can stick Scientology into the same group.

Your point is pointless. I could start a religion tomorrow and convince people it was divine, it means absolutely nothing.

It renders liamw's point about Christianity failing to argue it's position absolutely false.

liamw: - If all the videos that people linked to weren't over an hour long I might watch them.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

monosharp:

It's evidenced every day on these fora. Christians are more willing to admit that there is an emotional part and a rational part in why they believe in God. Atheists however are not willing to do this as much with their position. That sure makes it look that people are ashamed of discussing what could be emotionally driving their decisions as well as rationally driving them.

Or maybe, just maybe, when they say that emotional reasons do not play a part in their disbelief in your god they're actually telling the truth :eek:

A crazy idea I know

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It renders liamw's point about Christianity failing to argue it's position absolutely false.

liamw: - If all the videos that people linked to weren't over an hour long I might watch them.

He didn't say they couldn't argue their position, he said they have yet to show that it's true. Anyone can argue a position and have a lot of people believe them but that's different to showing that it's true. Each person who is convinced still has to show that they had rational reasons for being convinced or the fact that they were convinced is irrelevant.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

It renders liamw's point about Christianity failing to argue it's position absolutely false.

No, you completely misinterpreted my point. You seem to misinterpret a lot of points people make. My argument was clearly that Christianity has failed to prove that the Bible is anything but a book written by humans. And then you counter that by saying that Christianity has spread successfully?!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It renders liamw's point about Christianity failing to argue it's position absolutely false.

No it doesn't, it simply means theists have a much lower standard for what they will accept and why they will accept it.

It is like saying that Light treatment has successfully argued it's position that it curse cancer because people have paid to have the treatment.

Of course it hasn't, light treatment has never show to any medical standard, that it works as a treatment.

It gets people to buy the treatment not by demonstrating it works but by a whole host of other pseudo-scientific claims that "make sense to people".

Which is an awful lot like religion, which claims have never been demonstrated accurate by any scientific standard but which appeal to people based on the premise that it makes sense to them. Which is some what meaningless, though it does explain why we have so many religions and only one theory of germs or gravity or electromagnatism.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're confusing being able to convince large numbers of people that something is true with showing that something is true. Sathya Sai Baba has convinced millions that he is a miracle worker but I think we'll both agree that he hasn't shown himself to be. He can't because he's not.

It doesn't matter if a billion people believe, that's an argument ad populum. What matters is whether they have good objectively convincing reasons to belive. You can argue that they do but then the number of people that believe is still irrelevant

...sounds like the argument about the thousand evolutionists who are called 'Steve' is a similar argument ad populum !!!:):D

...great to see Monosharp up posting to this thread at 5.53 am yesterday morning ... you're really getting to the Atheists, Jackass!!!!:D

...they're not even able to sleep now, thinking about their unsaved state!!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...great to see Monosharp up posting to this thread at 5.53 am yesterday morning
...they're not even able to sleep now, thinking about their unsaved state!!!!

Or perhaps in Korea it was closer to the 2 pm today mark.;)

J C

liamw wrote: »

Jakkass, the point is that WE DON'T KNOW

... is this some kind of admission ... on on behalf of Evolutionism????:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Or perhaps in Korea it was closer to the 2 pm today mark.;)

....so now the atheists are not able to concentrate on their work either, thinking about their unsaved state!!!!:D

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Or maybe, just maybe, when they say that emotional reasons do not play a part in their disbelief in your god they're actually telling the truth :eek:

A crazy idea I know

Emotions have some form of an influence in our decision making, including that of rejecting God. It isn't a special scenario. I.E It's normal.

It's called wishful thinking to suggest that one was robotically rational in making such a decision. It places so much emphasis on reason, that it isn't actually possible to regard such a statement as being true. We're human not robots!

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass, the problem here for you is that said holybooks have to be man made for your religion to be correct. I, like you, think all those holybooks are man made, I just go one set of holybooks further.

Christians believe that God inspired people through the Holy Spirit in writing the books of the Bible. That is why we regard it as divine revelation. The Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation.

The authors of a book I was reading a while ago about the Bible (Dig Deeper: Tools to Unearth the Bible's Treasure), introduced the idea that the Bible is both a divine text (speaks of God's relationship with mankind), while being a human text (speaking of human nature, and human kind) at the same time.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Emotions have some form of an influence in our decision making, including that of rejecting God. It isn't a special scenario. I.E It's normal.

Yes it is normal for emotions to be used in making decisions but that's not the same as emotions being used in every decision

Jakkass wrote: »

It's called wishful thinking to suggest that one was robotically rational in making such a decision. It places so much emphasis on reason, that it isn't actually possible to regard such a statement as being true. We're human not robots!

There is wishful thinking going on here but I don't think it's where you think it is. I'm sure it's comforting to dismiss atheists as irrational or try to say their decision is as emotional as yours but I'm afraid it ain't the truth mate. I'm sure there are people who have declared themselves atheists for emotional reasons but it's far from the norm as far as I've seen.

Honestly Jakkass, do you really think it requires irrationality and emotion to not believe that a guy 2000 years ago walked on water, healed the sick with a wave of a hand and raised from the dead?

Do you also think that emotion plays a part in my decision not to follow Sathya Sai Baba or do you think it's because he's quite clearly a fraud? Do you have emotional reasons for not following him?

Do you think I have emotional reasons for not believing in leprechauns and pixies too or is it just your religion that we're emotionally rejecting?

You used the argument that we don't want to live under divine authority. You may find this surprising since you seem to think that without god we would all be murdering each other in the streets but I regularly inconvenience myself, give up time and money and even risk my safety to help others. If I find something I go to great lengths to return it to the owner and keeping it for myself wouldn't even occur to me, etc etc etc. I don't say this to brag, I say it to point out that this authority you think I'm emotionally rejecting, I actually impose on myself and the same can be said of most atheists, not all but most just like christians. I do what's right even though I don't think there is any divine authority. So at least in my case I'm afraid that argument fails. What other emotional reasons do you think we have for not believing an old story about a guy who could supposedly turn water into wine?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The authors of a book I was reading a while ago about the Bible (Dig Deeper: Tools to Unearth the Bible's Treasure), introduced the idea that the Bible is both a divine text (speaks of God's relationship with mankind), while being a human text (speaking of human nature, and human kind) at the same time.

What a wonderful way of explaining away any errors that might be found.

Error= human part

No apparent error = god inspired part

Sorted!

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it is normal for emotions to be used in making decisions but that's not the same as emotions being used in every decision

I have yet to see how the decision to reject God is different than other decisions. Our emotions impact every decision. Since you love referring to such things, here's a good article which discusses how emotions affect decision making.

This type of argument assuming that your decision involving atheism was entirely rational isn't going to convince anyone.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is wishful thinking going on here but I don't think it's where you think it is. I'm sure it's comforting to dismiss atheists as irrational or try to say their decision is as emotional as yours but I'm afraid it ain't the truth mate. I'm sure there are people who have declared themselves atheists for emotional reasons but it's far from the norm as far as I've seen.

I haven't said that atheists are irrational, nor was it my attempt to dismiss atheists as irrational. That would be a distortion of what I was saying. Rather I am dismissing the notion that any decision can be entirely rational. It's nonsense.

My decision wasn't entirely emotional, but I am human enough to suggest that there was some emotion involved. It's amazing how ashamed atheists seem to be of their emotions.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Honestly Jakkass, do you really think it requires irrationality and emotion to not believe that a guy 2000 years ago walked on water, healed the sick with a wave of a hand and raised from the dead?

I didn't say this either. There is a rational element to decision making, and there is an emotional part.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you also think that emotion plays a part in my decision not to follow Sathya Sai Baba or is do you think it's because he's quite clearly a fraud? Do you have emotional reasons for not following him?

If one doesn't take a position on Sathya Sai Baba or if one hasn't been introduced to him one hasn't had the thought. If one consciously rejects it, then yes there is some emotional involvement.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you think I have emotional reasons for not believing in leprechauns and pixies too?

Emotions are involved in every conscious decision.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You used the argument that we don't want to live under divine authority.

I said it was true of many atheists I have spoken to. The concept of God as a universal authority is unappealing to many.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote:

Yes it is normal for emotions to be used in making decisions but that's not the same as emotions being used in every decision

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't said that atheists are irrational, nor was it my attempt to dismiss atheists as irrational. That would be a distortion of what I was saying. Rather I am dismissing the notion that any decision can be entirely rational. It's nonsense.

Sorry Sam, it appears that I'm in agreement with Jakkass on this one.
Although, I think it still treated as an hypothesis, there is a very convincing body of evidence that suggests that every decision requires more emotional than many humans would think.
Perhaps, both Jakkass and me are taking you up wrong, but it seems like you're arguing that certain decisions can be made without emotions. This doesn't appear to be the case.

I would try the argument that atheists tend to think more rational and use less emotions relative to the theist position but I think that's a tentative one to make. I'm actually considering making the opposite more radical one.

Atheists tend to understand emotions better (though many are not aware of this) and thus on these grounds they are making a sounder decision in rejecting the concept of a God.

Sorry, Jakkass, this is going to have to wait till another day though.. before I make up me mind.:)
(Needz to readz moar boffinz research)

Also Jakkass, you didn't by any chance learn this whole "emotions-are-required-in-decision-making-thingy" from me?

liamw

J C wrote: »

... is this some kind of admission ... on on behalf of evolutionism????:D

Ye that's right JC, we don't know anything pre big-bang so I guess that rules out evolution

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

Ye that's right JC, we don't know anything pre big-bang

Stop saying that!!We do know somethings.:p

so I guess that rules out evolution

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYou-didn't-really-need-to-scroll-over-this-far:pOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo

I repent my ways! I repent my ways.
Now which God do I follow.....

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This type of argument assuming that your decision involving atheism was entirely rational isn't going to convince anyone.

Just because it doesn't convince someone who has already decided in advance that our decision was emotional doesn't mean it won't convince anyone mate. In fact I would argue that your decision to say that our decision was emotional.....was emotional.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have yet to see how the decision to reject God is different than other decisions.

Because I'm not rejecting god, I'm rejecting an old book that appears to be no different to any other book of supernatural tales. There is a difference that theists often don't seem to get

Jakkass wrote: »

Our emotions impact every decision. Since you love referring to such things, here's a good article which discusses how emotions affect decision making.

Your argument here seems to be that it's not possible to make a purely rational decision. I'll tell you what Jakkass, I'll grant you that emotions generally play a part in our decisions, it's a point I have made to theists many times. But that does not mean that all decisions are equally emotional and more importantly that the decision to be an atheist is as driven by emotion as the decision to be a theist. The way you're talking the term "rational decision" would become meaningless because by your definition it's physically impossible to make such a decision.

so let's redefine: by the real world, physically possible and humanly achievable definition of the term "rational decision", my decision to be an atheist was rational. As a human being I cannot escape the fact that I have emotions but they played as little a part in my decision to be an atheist as is humanly possible. I simply do not find it plausible that a Jewish carpenter walked on water, healed the sick, turned water into wine and raised from the dead. I disbelieve this for the same reason that I don't accept the claims of Islam or Hinduism and for the same reasons that I do not believe in leprechauns and pixies. I do not find them plausible and that's really the end of it

I categorically reject the notion that dislike of authority played a part in my decision; not liking god's authority does not make him not exist. Bearing that in mind, what other emotions do you think it takes to not pick one story of a guy healing the sick and believe that one while rejecting all the other stories of other guys healing the sick? It's all well and good to say emotions play a part in all decisions but which emotions exactly does it take to not believe in one specific magic tale over all others?

Jakkass wrote: »

My decision wasn't entirely emotional, but I am human enough to suggest that there was some emotion involved. It's amazing how ashamed atheists seem to be of their emotions.

This is not about shame no matter how much you would like it to be and not matter how many times you claim it is. I say my decision was not emotional because it wasn't by any humanly attainable definition

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't say this either. There is a rational element to decision making, and there is an emotional part.

Mate, there's nothing rational about thinking it's more likely that a guy raised from the dead than that 12 people were deluded or made up a story. The latter has happened millions of times, the former has never happened. To turn it around, you go to great lengths to try to show that your faith is rational. You even give us all these reasons that are so convincing to you but I find baffling because I can't understand how anyone would find these convincing. The reason of course is that your decision to accept these "reasons" was emotional but it's almost as if.....you're ashamed to admit it

Jakkass wrote: »

I said it was true of many atheists I have spoken to. The concept of God as a universal authority is unappealing to many.

Actually, if there is one emotion involved in my rejection of christianity it's terror at the thought of the horrendous being described in the old testament ruling over us*

*Note that I am being ironic. I just think it's ridiculous

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What a wonderful way of explaining away any errors that might be found.

Error= human part

No apparent error = god inspired part

Sorted!

That isn't the reason why they wrote about it in context. Simply, because the Bible as a book deals with things of God, and with things and narratives of humanity.

Especially far from the point because the authors write:

One of the wonderful things about God is that He doesn't lie (Titus 1:2). He doesn't make mistakes either, because He knows everything there is to know. If the Bible is God's word, then it follows that the Bible doesn't lie or make mistakes.

I'm not attempting to argue about mistakes in the Bible, but rather to make the simple point, that the Bible is both human and divine.

Malty T wrote:

Atheists tend to understand emotions better (though many are not aware of this) and thus on these grounds they are making a sounder decision in rejecting the concept of a God.

One has the right to call that nonsense. I just guess that atheists are better at everything than theists are without question then? There's no way a Christian can actually win the argument with you guys. The atheist has to be superior in every way.

I am right in saying that that's ridiculous, and I don't see why one should regard that form of argument as being reasonable.

Call this nail in the coffin part two. I as a Christian, am quite willing to accept that some atheists are better than me at certain things. I am also willing to admit that God may have given me certain abilities, that would cause me to excel at certain things in comparison to some atheists.

The idea that atheists in general are better at understanding emotions however, is nonsense. Does understanding emotion mean that one should deny it outright? This is where I have to agree with the Greek philosopher Aristotle, in that the balancing of the emotions is what makes someone rational, rather than their outright dismissal.

Why is it that a lot of atheists feel the need to regard themselves as being universally superior to theists?

Malty T wrote:

Also Jakkass, you didn't by any chance learn this whole "emotions-are-required-in-decision-making-thingy" from me

Perhaps partial influence. I'm not a complete rationalist. Reason is important, but there are emotional considerations to be made in everything we do.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote:

Mate, there's nothing rational about thinking it's more likely that a guy raised from the dead than that 12 people were deluded or made up a story. The latter has happened millions of times, the former has never happened. To turn it around, you go to great lengths to try to show that your faith is rational. You even give us all these reasons that are so convincing to you but I find baffling because I can't understand how anyone would find these convincing. The reason of course is that your decision to accept these "reasons" was emotional but it's almost as if.....you're ashamed to admit it

Round and round we go.

I've already admitted to you numerous times in the A&A forum that if I held the 2 major assumptions that you do:
1) Everything is material
2) There is no universal meaning to life.

Then of course I would regard the Resurrection as being absolutely absurd.

In order to regard the Resurrection as viable, I would have to hold the following:
1) Not everything has to be material
2) There is a Creator God, and a universal meaning to life.

If I hold these positions, then yes, it's entirely reasonable for Jesus to have been Resurrected.

If I hold the positions you do, then no, it's entirely irrational for Jesus to have been Resurrected.

What would be more prudent would be to question the 2 positions that you hold to establish your position, and the 2 I hold to establish mine. That's more pragmatic than scorning my view as being irrational from your assumptions all of the time. That argument has zero substance, and doesn't get us anywhere.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Perhaps, both Jakkass and me are taking you up wrong, but it seems like you're arguing that certain decisions can be made without emotions. This doesn't appear to be the case.

I would try the argument that atheists tend to think more rational and use less emotions relative to the theist position but I think that's a tentative one to make

I'm way ahead of you Well behind you but I wrote the post while you were writing this one.

Talking to a theist I can understand why they wouldn't accept the point, ie their very own emotional reasoning but it's nonsense to suggest that it takes emotion to not believe some guy raised from the dead with no supporting evidence in the same way that it takes emotion to believe it. The former is based on every single thing that human beings have learned about the laws of nature since the dawn of reason and the latter is based on the same except they think an exception was made for this one guy 2000 years ago. They're not the same thing. They're not even similar. One is emotional and the other is rational, by the humanly attainable definition of the word.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote:

One is emotional and the other is rational, by the humanly attainable definition of the word.

Round and round we go again! Just because we're very good at stating the word rational doesn't make it so.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Round and round we go.

I've already admitted to you numerous times in the A&A forum that if I held the 2 major assumptions that you do:
1) Everything is material
2) There is no universal meaning to life.

Then of course I would regard the Resurrection as being absolutely absurd.

I think we go round and round probably because you don't listen any of the times that I tell you that I make neither of those assumptions. I look forward to the next time you accuse me of making them having ignored me again.

Jakkass wrote: »

In order to regard the Resurrection as viable, I would have to hold the following:
1) Not everything has to be material
2) There is a Creator God, and a universal meaning to life.

If I hold these positions, then yes, it's entirely reasonable for Jesus to have been Resurrected.

But then every single crackpot claim that has ever been made becomes equally reasonable. There is still no way to objectively single out the resurrection as the one true one among the millions of false ones. All you do when you make those assumptions is you make it impossible to rationally determine anything. If you were a scientist running an experiment you wouldn't know if it succeeded because that is what is expected by the laws of nature or because invisible pixies intervened each time you ran it

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Round and round we go again! Just because we're very good at stating the word rational doesn't make it so.

Ok then, please tell why the decision to believe that one particular guy 2000 years ago walked on water is as rational as the decision not to believe it. Remember that I want an explanation that makes it rational to believe this specific claim, not an argument that makes all supernatural claims just as likely to be true.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think we go round and round probably because you don't listen any of the times that I tell you that I make neither of those assumptions. I look forward to the next time you accuse me of making them having ignored me again.

You mean, I don't agree with what you are saying, and we better just go over it again, and you'll agree next time, if you are "rational" that is. It's an awful means of argumentation.

Disagreement results in "not listening".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But then every single crackpot claim that has ever been made becomes equally reasonable. There is still no way to objectively single out the resurrection as the one true one among the millions of false ones. All you do when you make those assumptions is you make it impossible to rationally determine anything. If you were a scientist running an experiment you wouldn't know if it succeeded because that is what is expected by the laws of nature or because invisible pixies intervened each time you ran it

Do you ever wonder why I insist to start from Creation when we are discussing about God?

If one cannot even agree on the possibility of a Creator God, what is the point in discussing the Resurrection. It's a waste of time, because all that is going to happen is due to what we are bringing with us into the argument (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant for the time being), we are going to outwardly disagree with each other.

The reality is, if there is indeed a God, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that He can intervene in His creation.

The problem isn't the miracles, it's the God. (This applies to your walking on water objection too)

If I believed that this world is merely material, I'd shake your hand and walk away in agreement right now. From your view of materialism, and of objective meaninglessness, it makes good sense! The question is does the materialism, and the objective meaninglessness make sense.

Tackling the root of the problem is the most pragmatic means of argument.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps partial influence. I'm not a complete rationalist. Reason is important, but there are emotional considerations to be made in everything we do.

Neither am I a complete rationalist.

Does understanding emotion mean that one should deny it outright? This is where I have to agree with the Greek philosopher Aristotle, in that the balancing of the emotions is what makes someone rational, rather than their outright dismissal.

No, absolutely not! It means actually learning to "listen" to them and using them intelligently. This, unfortunately, is a complicated subject but suffice to say studies have shown that those that understand their emotions better then to be more competent at nearly every task than the person who doesn't.//Edit Removed Dubious info//
I really can't say anything that I think is accurate here.
I know for certain though (and I think philosophy pretty much deduced it too) that you cannot ignore emotion. It's about a balance and understanding the mechanisms. In other words: pure romance, or pure reason are not really the way to go.

I just guess that atheists are better at everything than theists are without question then?

I'm not even attempting such an argument of the sort you suggest. I was just speculating that atheists understood emotions better on the fact that atheists in general seem to be more aware of the fact our brain can create powerful delusions.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not even attempting such an argument of the sort you suggest. I was just speculating that atheists understood emotions better it on the fact that atheists in general seem to be more aware of the fact our brain can create powerful delusions.

It's assuming:

1) All atheists are the same.
2) All Christians are the same.
3) Atheists are generally superior than Christians.

No matter what Christians do or say, it seems that another argument of convenience will be placed against them.

Although, in this case I'll have to retract my generalisation that Christians are more in tune with their emotions than atheists. I am willing to do this.

I must hit the hay though!

I feel we've made slight progress to focus on the real problem rather than on the individual miracles that come as a result of the problem we have.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You mean, I don't agree with what you are saying, and we better just go over it again, and you'll agree next time, if you are "rational" that is. It's an awful means of argumentation.

Disagreement results in "not listening".

This is not about disagreement. You said "if I held the 2 major assumptions that you do" and I told you that I do not hold those assumptions. I do not make the same assumptions as you but that's different to making the opposite assumptions. Think of it like the commonly stated difference between "I don't believe in your god" and "there is no god". I make no assumptions and will continue to make no assumptions until I have reason to assume either way. A subtle but important difference

You can disagree with my opinions but you don't get to disagree about what my opinions are. That's called straw manning. If you say that I hold assumptions that I do not then you are wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why I insist to start from Creation when we are discussing about God?

I know why you do because you, like a lot of theists seem to think that that is the only barrier to be breached but I see it as completely irrelevant for the reason I just stated. Even if I was to completely accept that there was an objective meaning to life and that the supernatural existed, there would still be no objective way to determine the truth of one supernatural claim over another. I would be in exactly the same position that I am now, ie I don't unequivocally discount the possibility that any of the events described by any religions happened, I just won't accept one as being true until independently verifiable evidence can be provided.

Your logic would only be valid if there was only one branch of christianity and it was the only religion in the world. The idea of a choice being made between christianity and atheism is a false dichotomy.

Jakkass wrote: »

The reality is, if there is indeed a God, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that He can intervene in His creation.

If there is indeed a god it's perfectly reasonable to believe any supernatural claim that has ever been made and therein lies the problem. It has nothing to do with a belief that everything is material. What you're essentially saying is that once you assume that the specific type of god described by christianity exists it's reasonable to believe that the claims made about christianity are true. But that's a circular argument. To be reasonable you should look at the claims, see if they're reasonable and either believe in the god or not based on your assessment but you've jumped to deciding that that specific god exists and retrospectively found the claims reasonable. And that's not reasonable, it's assume true therefore true

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Even if I was to completely accept that there was an objective meaning to life

I think I asked you this before, but you do think there is no objective meaning to life?