How did you arrive at Christianity?

[Ed1wolf]

Absolutely

So you agree that the universe is an effect and needs a cause. So far I have not assumed the existence of God, we are just both agreeing that the universe needs a cause as shown by science. And according to the law of causality that cause cannot be part of the effect, it must "transcend" it. BTW which just happens to be a characteristic of God.

ed: and in fact a personal cause because purposes exist in the universe and we know that purposes only come from personal beings.

pos: What fact,

The fact that purposes only come from personal beings.

pos: What purpose.,

A few of them are eyes that are for seeing, ears that are for hearing, legs for walking, and etc.

pos: and what is a personal being ?

A being with a mind, will, conscience, and something like emotions.

ed: So this eliminates flying unicorns as the creator of the existence because they are not persons they are horses.

pos: Again you would have to first show purpose.

I did, See above.

ed: Second, out of all the major sacred books and religions only the Christianity and the Bible teaches that the universe had a definite beginning and was created out of nothing detectable.

pos: It does teach that what we see has a beginning, as do other holy books

But only the Bible teaches that the universe was not created out of some pre-existing material. All other non-biblical religions do teach this.

pos: What do you mean by 'nothing detectable' do you mean out of or by what we don't know.

I mean nothing that we can detect with our senses or science.

ed: Both of which have been confirmed by the BB theory.

pos: Without first proving a purpose and a god the genesis story is not compatible with the big bang theory, not in any honest way.

I did, see above. And also the bible teaches that the universe is expanding and winding down energetically, also confirmed by the BB theory.

ed: From history, the resurrection of Christ has better documentary evidence than Caesars Gallic Wars.

pos: Ceasres Gallic wars don't have people walking on water, thousands of dead people coming back to life, people floating around on clouds..etc etc. or do you mean more people wrote about it ?

I don't know where you read that the bible said that thousands of dead people coming back to life. No, I mean we have extant documents that were written about events that occurred less than 200 years after they occurred, but with the Gallic wars our oldest copies are 900 years after the events.

pos: outside the fantasy of the bible is there much evidence at all for the supernatural claims ?

I demonstrated above that the supernatural/God exists, if He exists then plainly supernatural events can occur. The bible is hardly fantasy it was written very close to the events that it claims occurred unlike many other ancient historical works that are considered generally accurate like Herodotus and Josephus.

ed: Philosophically, the very nature of the universe, ie that it is a diversity within a unity,

pos: What does that even mean ?

The universe on a cosmic scale is made up of galaxies (the unity) of different types, ie the diversity. This characteristic is true of everything that exists in the universe. Even in living things. For example, there are mammals, (the unity), but they are made up of many different kinds, (the diversity). This characteristic is actually what led to the theory of evolution. There are vertebrates, the unity, but different kinds of vertebrates, the diversity.

ed: point to the Christian God as its creator because we know that most creators imprint aspects of themselves in their creations. And only the Christian God is a true diversity within a unity, ie the Trinity.

pos: What does that mean ?

See above.

ed: And these are just a few of the evidences for Christianity in the three areas of science, history and philosophy.

pos: You really believe that? Without first presuming a god, and not only that the Christian god all these arguments are meaningless. A rather circular way to go about things, it's one of those ways of thinking that make sense if you already believe they will and explain everything.
But to someone actually looking for evidence in the real sense, they explain nothing.

Huh? Nowhere did I presume the existence of the Christian God. I started out looking at the universe as an effect and studied the characteristics of the effect to determine the cause. This is done everyday in science. Look at the posts above again, nowhere did I presume the existence of God.

 

[possibletarian]

So you agree that the universe is an effect and needs a cause. So far I have not assumed the existence of God,

Okay

we are just both agreeing that the universe needs a cause as shown by science.

Okay

And according to the law of causality that cause cannot be part of the effect, it must "transcend" it.

A cause has to be before its effect, yes

BTW which just happens to be a characteristic of God.

Can you prove what you call a god wasn't the effect of a cause even if one could be proved ? There is absolutely no evidence of a god now, or before the start of the universe.

The fact that purposes only come from personal beings.

What purpose ?
Can you quote any science on this ?

A few of them are eyes that are for seeing, ears that are for hearing, legs for walking, and etc.

All that proves is evolutionary survival
This is what StTruth was trying to explain to you, you are heaping faulty presumption, one upon another.

A being with a mind, will, conscience, and something like emotions.

Again all that shows is evolutionary science, the mind is chemicals in the brain, as are emotions. Can you prove they are anything more that we observe ? if not we are back in the area of assumption.

But only the Bible teaches that the universe was not created out of some pre-existing material.

I'm not sure how the bible teaches that, but that aside How do you know nothing existed before?

I mean nothing that we can detect with our senses or science.

That leads us back to at the very best to we don't know if anything existed before

I did, see above. And also the bible teaches that the universe is expanding

I think the rather sketchy it also says he stretches out the sky like a canopy, like a tent which of course we know is utterly ridiculous now.
Again the bible does not confirm the big bang theory in any honest way. It has everything being created around the earth, which we know is utter nonsense.

I don't know where you read that the bible said that thousands of dead people coming back to life.

Matthew 27:50-54 (NIV)
(50) And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
(51) At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.
(52) The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
(53) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Odd also that given such an event that the other gospel writers didn't think it was worth mentioning.

No, I mean we have extant documents that were written about events that occurred less than 200 years after they occurred, but with the Gallic wars our oldest copies are 900 years after the events.

Fair enough, but still that does not mean that we shouldn't treat fantastic stories with a great deal scepticism.

I demonstrated above that the supernatural/God exists, if He exists then plainly supernatural events can occur.

You have not even explained it, never mind provided evidence, you have to prove,
1) There is a god
2) That the material you provide is in fact god inspired in any way.
You have done neither.

The bible is hardly fantasy it was written very close to the events that it claims occurred unlike many other ancient historical works that are considered generally accurate like Herodotus and Josephus.

So let me get this straight, you have Herodotus who wrote about what people wrote essentially he relied on the already existing Jewish texts. And you have Josephus who wrote again about what he had read.

This is hardly stunning evidence of miracles and neither mention them in any way, they just seem to infer that these people existed, which is not in doubt, just like Christianity as one of the many world religions is not in doubt. What is striking though is that mention of Jesus and other biblical characters is not seen in his early works.

The universe on a cosmic scale is made up of galaxies (the unity) of different types, ie the diversity.

What unity.. explain

This characteristic is true of everything that exists in the universe

.

Again, explain further, to me this is gibberish.

Even in living things. For example, there are mammals,

Again explain, unity of what ?

(the unity),[ but they are made up of many different kinds, (the diversity).

Okay

This characteristic is actually what led to the theory of evolution. There are vertebrates, the unity, but different kinds of vertebrates, the diversity.

Ermmm okay

Huh? Nowhere did I presume the existence of the Christian God. I started out looking at the universe as an effect and studied the characteristics of the effect to determine the cause. This is done everyday in science. Look at the posts above again, nowhere did I presume the existence of God.

What science, I don't see anything recognisable as science above ?
Explain further.

 

[Ed1wolf]

EdWolf,
You are confusing the "teachings of Christ" with a belief in the supernatural gods you believe in. You know that is wrong. And you know that you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Huh? Not exactly sure what you are saying here. But since for Christians their God is Jesus Christ in whom they believe in, they try to obey His teachings. Remember Christ said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." That is why they brought about all these good things about Western civilization as I stated earlier.

 

[radhead]

Huh? Not exactly sure what you are saying here. But since for Christians their God is Jesus Christ in whom they believe in, they try to obey His teachings. Remember Christ said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." That is why they brought about all these good things about Western civilization as I stated earlier.

What??

What does that verse have to do with following his teachings? Most of the words attributed to Jesus have been disproven by modern scholars.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So you agree that the universe is an effect and needs a cause. So far I have not assumed the existence of God,

pos: Okay

Matthew 27:50-54 (NIV)
(50) And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
(51) At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.
(52) The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
(53) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Odd also that given such an event that the other gospel writers didn't think it was worth mentioning.

It says many HOLY people, holy people are rare. It was probably no more than 20-30 people. Among Christians at the time it was probably so well known orally, the other writers probably felt there was no need to repeat it.

ed: No, I mean we have extant documents that were written about events that occurred less than 200 years after they occurred, but with the Gallic wars our oldest copies are 900 years after the events.

pos: Fair enough, but still that does not mean that we shouldn't treat fantastic stories with a great deal scepticism.

True, but given the strong evidence that the Christian God exists, the probability that the events occurred increases greatly.

ed: I demonstrated above that the supernatural/God exists, if He exists then plainly supernatural events can occur.

pos: You have not even explained it, never mind provided evidence, you have to prove,
1) There is a god
2) That the material you provide is in fact god inspired in any way.
You have done neither.

I never claimed I could PROVE God exists, my argument is that there is much more evidence that He exists, than that He doesn't. And that Christianity is the most rational worldview. Nothing can be proven with certainty except your own existence to yourself. As far as the evidence for His existence, the BB theory combined with the law of causality and law of sufficient cause, shows quite strongly that He most likely DOES exist. And the bible taught the basics of the BB theory 3000 years before these facts were discovered by cosmologists, that points to its divine origin among other things.

ed: The bible is hardly fantasy it was written very close to the events that it claims occurred unlike many other ancient historical works that are considered generally accurate like Herodotus and Josephus.

pos: So let me get this straight, you have Herodotus who wrote about what people wrote essentially he relied on the already existing Jewish texts. And you have Josephus who wrote again about what he had read.

This is hardly stunning evidence of miracles and neither mention them in any way, they just seem to infer that these people existed, which is not in doubt, just like Christianity as one of the many world religions is not in doubt.

Your missing my point, much of the bible was written much closer to the actual events than either Herodotus and Josephus (who are considered generally reliable historical documents) and one of the top criteria for historical accuracy of ancient documents is how close to the time the documents were written to actual events. So the Bible should be considered generally reliable also.

pos: What is striking though is that mention of Jesus and other biblical characters is not seen in his early works.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

pos: The universe on a cosmic scale is made up of galaxies (the unity) of different types, ie the diversity.

pos: What unity.. explain

They are all galaxies. The classification of stars also follow this pattern. There are billions of objects classified and determined as stars (the unity) but there are different kinds of stars within this unity, this is the diversity.

ed: This characteristic is true of everything that exists in the universe

pos: Again, explain further, to me this is gibberish.

See above.

ed: Even in living things. For example, there are mammals,

pos: Again explain, unity of what ?

ed: (the unity),[ but they are made up of many different kinds, (the diversity).

pos: Okay

This pattern is what also led to the science of taxonomy. Mammals are a single group, the unity, but there are many different species of mammals, the diversity.

ed: This characteristic is actually what led to the theory of evolution. There are vertebrates, the unity, but different kinds of vertebrates, the diversity.

pos: Ermmm okay

ed: Huh? Nowhere did I presume the existence of the Christian God. I started out looking at the universe as an effect and studied the characteristics of the effect to determine the cause. This is done everyday in science. Look at the posts above again, nowhere did I presume the existence of God.

pos: What science, I don't see anything recognisable as science above ?
Explain further.

Scientists see effects occurring, so they study these effects to determine what caused them. So how do they determine the cause? By studying the characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause. For example, if there is a fire, whatever caused it must have heat as one of its characteristics. The same thing can be done with the universe as an effect.

 

[possibletarian]

It says many HOLY people, holy people are rare. It was probably no more than 20-30 people. Among Christians at the time it was probably so well known orally, the other writers probably felt there was no need to repeat it.

Laughable, you no equate 'many' with 20-40 how did you come to that conclusion, your own judgement that there were not many holy people ? It says they appeared to many. Besides the point being it is a very extraordinary claim, one that is not repeated elsewhere.

True, but given the strong evidence that the Christian God exists, the probability that the events occurred increases greatly.

Again, what strong evidence ?

I never claimed I could PROVE God exists, my argument is that there is much more evidence that He exists, than that He doesn't.

Again where? apart from you proclaiming god (which of course is no evidence) I don't see anything that means I have to make a god up of any variety, never mind the Christian god.

And that Christianity is the most rational worldview.

Really, how ?

Nothing can be proven with certainty except your own existence to yourself. As far as the evidence for His existence, the BB theory combined with the law of causality and law of sufficient cause, shows quite strongly that He most likely DOES exist.

Again how and where ?

And the bible taught the basics of the BB theory 3000 years before these facts were discovered by cosmologists, that points to its divine origin among other things

Not in any honest way it does not, it ridiculous to claim so.

Your missing my point, much of the bible was written much closer to the actual events than either Herodotus and Josephus (who are considered generally reliable historical documents)

And that proves what, that doesn't add evidence for any supernatural claim at all, they were just repeating what was heard, first Jewish history, then NT history, just like any other nation or religion claiming supernatural powers from their god.

and one of the top criteria for historical accuracy of ancient documents is how close to the time the documents were written to actual events. So the Bible should be considered generally reliable also.

Yes it is but again that does not mean that the supernatural claims can be verified, just that that the original fantasy was repeated with some care and accuracy. One would have thought that a supernatural god of such powers would be able to put these issues beyond doubt.

They are all galaxies. The classification of stars also follow this pattern.

What pattern ?

There are billions of objects classified and determined as stars (the unity) but there are different kinds of stars within this unity, this is the diversity.

Yes but diversity simply proves diversity nothing more, it does not imply an intelligent diversity, The universe is a violent unordered place. You only need to look at our own history for that the earth has been hit a few times by objects from space that near enough wiped out all life. Our plates crust like other planets is shifting and dangerous, our weather like other planets can be dangerous and deadly.

This pattern is what also led to the science of taxonomy. Mammals are a single group, the unity, but there are many different species of mammals, the diversity.

Yes but all that points to is that evolutionary biology is true, in fact it without that diversity it could not be true.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What??

What does that verse have to do with following his teachings?

Jesus' commands ARE His teachings. And so He said if you don't follow His commands/teachings then you don't love Him.

rad: Most of the words attributed to Jesus have been disproven by modern scholars.

That is irrelevant to our discussion. We were talking about how Christians and Christianity have produced most of what is good about Western Civilization, such as human rights like free speech. Even if skeptics believe His words have been disproven by scholars (btw only by scholars that presuppose the philosophy of Naturalism), that does not refute the fact that Christians and Christianity by following those words have produced almost everything good about western civilization.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hi,

I dispute that. Show me the particular verse in Genesis 1 that uses two different words for 'sky' or 'firmament'.

Verses 7 and 8. The words translated expanse and sky are the two different Hebrew words.

st: You cannot use other books of the Bible and try to read into Genesis 1 what it doesn't contain.

Yes, Christians have always believed the bible to be a unified whole. You have to interpret the unclear parts with the more clear parts and verses have to be understood in the context of the whole bible. This has been the Christian understanding of interpretation for nearly 2000 years.

st:Whatever your reply may be, let me just assure readers that I KNOW you will not be able to do as I have requested simply because there is NO SUCH THING in Genesis 1 which speaks of a very flawed cosmology but which is perfectly understandable because Genesis was written by ancient people who were ignorant of cosmology and who simply applied ancient Hebrew cosmology which is incorrect.

Cheers,

St Truth

While the ancient hebrews did not fully understand what Genesis was saying because they did not understand God's other book, nature, very well to help them. We with our greater knowledge of nature have learned that those verses are referring to the formation of the atmosphere under outer space.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hi Ed1wolf,

Yes I saw your post but it's the usual argument I have seen many times online and on youtube. I've seen Craig using the same argument. I've seen Ravi Zacharias and the felon Dinesh D'Souza using this same argument but as you should know, it's flawed.

Fraid not, it has never been refuted.

st: What possibletarian responded in post # 50 is highly relevant but you have not countered what he said. What he is showing you is that when you use those arguments, you are effectively pegging one presupposition upon another. It's done so subtly that you don't even realise it yourself. I have no doubt that you are perfectly honest but I really believe you are mistaken. Go through what he says in post # 50 and you will see why he asks those questions.

Go and read my response to his post 50, I demonstrated that he was incorrect, I never presupposed ANYTHING.

st: The other problem I have with the use of the usual argument whether it's cosmological or whatever is the argument can only work for the establishment of a Deist God. It fails when it is used for our Theistic God who has all the biblical attributes of love, omnipotence and a keen interest in human affairs. What many of these apologists do is to use the arguments for a Deist God and then slyly slips in our God as if our God could just easily stand in place of the Deist God that they have been arguing for. I'm not saying these arguments show the existence of the Deist God. Not even that. But I believe a case can be made for the existence of a Deist God who did only the creation through the Big Bang and after that goes into severe retirement. But it can't be used for our God who intervenes too much and who loves us and who is Almighty. Reality militates against the existence of such an entity.

Cheers,

St Truth

No, see my post to Possibilitarian about the diversity within a unity nature of the universe which points to the Triune God which is also a diversity within a unity because creators always impose aspects of them selves on their creation. Also, since personal beings exist in this universe then the cause of the universe must be a person because only persons can produce the personal.

 

[possibletarian]

No, see my post to Possibilitarian about the diversity within a unity nature of the universe which points to the Triune God

Diversity does not point to a creator, if so then how so?
What unity are we talking about ?

which is also a diversity within a unity because creators always impose aspects of them selves on their creation.

Creators ? again a presumption
The universe is a violent, volatile chaotic place as events of the past few weeks have shown even the earth is a hostile place.

Also, since personal beings exist in this universe then the cause of the universe must be a person because only persons can produce the personal.

What is a personal being ?
Why does it require a personal creator ?
If your god (one of many claimed) is a personal being, does this mean also he/she could have been created ?

Go and read my response to his post 50, I demonstrated that he was incorrect, I never presupposed ANYTHING.

You didn't provide any evidence whatsoever of a created universe or a god, merely proclaiming you did is not a reasonable refute.

What you actually did was present some thoughts of yours, none of which in fact point to a god, then magically somewhere down the line decided it was evidence of a god. (that is called a presupposed outcome) .

 

[StTruth]

No, see my post to Possibilitarian about the diversity within a unity nature of the universe which points to the Triune God which is also a diversity within a unity because creators always impose aspects of them selves on their creation. Also, since personal beings exist in this universe then the cause of the universe must be a person because only persons can produce the personal.

Hi Ed1wolf,

After reading that statement of yours (quoted above), I was speechless for some time because I just couldn't believe anyone could possibly think that way. In my quest to find out more about my faith and to decide for myself whether it has truth in it, I read quite a lot of books by scholars. I also read church history. One of the early church fathers (I've forgotten which one but I think googling can help locate him) wanted to explain why we have four Gospels and not fewer or more. He said that just as there are four corners of the earth and the earth has four winds, so have we four Gospels. I was quite surprised that any grown person could have a reasoning as faulty as that. And he wrote it as if it was a real clincher - now, that should nail it as to why we have four Gospels.

I experienced the same shock when you wrote this: 'the diversity within a unity nature of the universe which points to the Triune God which is also a diversity within a unity because creators always impose aspects of them selves on their creation.' You wrote it in the context of evidence or an argument for God's existence. Having thought over all this, do you still think that the 'diversity within a unity' is a good argument or evidence for God's existence? Or is it a preamble for the real piece of evidence that you will soon unfold? If that is the case, I await the evidence that you will soon present.

However, if you still think that what you have written is evidence for the existence of our Triune God or a compelling argument, then I have nothing further to say except that we both have drastically different brains and there's no way we can have any meaningful discussion. I will continue to search for the truth of my religion elsewhere and I wish you God's blessings and I thank you for your time.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Also, since personal beings exist in this universe then the cause of the universe must be a person because only persons can produce the personal.

I, a person, was "produced" with a sperm and an egg. Neither of those are persons, unless you're attempting to bend the definition of "person" to the point at which it's crying out in pain...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It says many HOLY people, holy people are rare. It was probably no more than 20-30 people. Among Christians at the time it was probably so well known orally, the other writers probably felt there was no need to repeat it.

pos: Laughable, you no equate 'many' with 20-40 how did you come to that conclusion, your own judgement that there were not many holy people ? It says they appeared to many. Besides the point being it is a very extraordinary claim, one that is not repeated elsewhere.

No, the Bible itself claims that true Holy people are rare. Plus my own experience has confirmed it. How many Billy Grahams or Mother Teresa's, or St. Francis' are there? Not many. I already explained why it was probably not repeated the other gospels.

ed: True, but given the strong evidence that the Christian God exists, the probability that the events occurred increases greatly.

pos: Again, what strong evidence ?

The universe has been determined by science to be an effect and therefore needs a cause. According to a basic law of logic, the cause cannot be part of the effect, ie it has to be "outside" it. Which is a characteristic of God in relation to the universe. Also, as I demonstrated earlier there are purposes that exist in the universe and we know that only personal beings can create purposes. Therefore the cause of the universe is personal just like the Christian God. In addition, the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is also a fundamental characteristic of the Christian Triune God, thereby making that His probably His fingerprint.

ed: I never claimed I could PROVE God exists, my argument is that there is much more evidence that He exists, than that He doesn't.

pos: Again where? apart from you proclaiming god (which of course is no evidence) I don't see anything that means I have to make a god up of any variety, never mind the Christian god.

See above for the biggest piece of evidence, ie the Universe. But there is much more besides.

ed: And that Christianity is the most rational worldview.

pos: Really, how ?

Christianity provides the most rational basis for why the universe is the way it is. Atheism cannot explain why the universe is a diversity within a unity or even why the universe even exists.

ed: Nothing can be proven with certainty except your own existence to yourself. As far as the evidence for His existence, the BB theory combined with the law of causality and law of sufficient cause, shows quite strongly that He most likely DOES exist.

pos: Again how and where ?

See above.

 

[possibletarian]

No, the Bible itself claims that true Holy people are rare. Plus my own experience has confirmed it. How many Billy Grahams or Mother Teresa's, or St. Francis' are there? Not many. I already explained why it was probably not repeated the other gospels

Actually I don't believe anyone is a saint and since when did you decide how many holy men there are ?
And no it does not explain why a story of men coming up from the grave and appearing in the 'Holy City' after many saw them is not cited in other gospels.

The universe has been determined by science to be an effect and therefore needs a cause.

Science is what we see, it was created by men to describe how we see the universe.
It did not need to exist prior to the universe

According to a basic law of logic, the cause cannot be part of the effect ie it has to be "outside" it.

We may never know what was the cause or even if there was one in any understandable way. The study of quarks may reveal some answers there.

Which is a characteristic of God in relation to the universe.

Again presumption, have you any evidence of a god ?

Also, as I demonstrated earlier there are purposes that exist in the universe

And yet it remains simply a statement, what purpose ?

and we know that only personal beings can create purposes.

What is a personable being?
What are purposes ?

Therefore the cause of the universe is personal just like the Christian God.

Again presumption, there is absolutely no proof, evidence , or even logic that points to a personal first cause.

In addition, the universe is a diversity within a unity,

Again you seem to be repeating gibberish, what on earth does that mean even ?

which is also a fundamental characteristic of the Christian Triune God, thereby making that His probably His fingerprint.

And yet again you simply assert without evidence

See above for the biggest piece of evidence, ie the Universe. But there is much more besides.

Thank goodness for that, what you have presented so far is simply gibberish

Christianity provides the most rational basis for why the universe is the way it is.

Again, how and why? the universe is a violent chaotic place, even the earth is a violent chaotic place ?

Atheism cannot explain why the universe is a diversity within a

Atheism does not and was never meant to explain anything, why do Christians keep making basic errors like this?

But evolution can explain diversity, in fact evolution depends on diversity to exist as a theory, diversity is evolutions cornerstone.

or even why the universe even exists.

Again presumption, why does there have to be a why ?

 

[radhead]

Jesus' commands ARE His teachings. And so He said if you don't follow His commands/teachings then you don't love Him.


That is irrelevant to our discussion. We were talking about how Christians and Christianity have produced most of what is good about Western Civilization, such as human rights like free speech. Even if skeptics believe His words have been disproven by scholars (btw only by scholars that presuppose the philosophy of Naturalism), that does not refute the fact that Christians and Christianity by following those words have produced almost everything good about western civilization.

I'm sorry, but you just haven't shown any connection between Christianity and those things. Yes, it was the main organized religion in the west but that is not saying much. Are you even aware that *slavery* was justified by Christianity? The Ku Klux Klan was saying the same things you are 100 years ago. And they were considered a nice, family oriented association in their day. Which I'm sure that people like yourself would have completely embraced.

The good principles Jesus taught were not unique to him. Nor are they things that anyone needs to be taught. They are inherent in every culture. Every remote tribe practices love, until the point in time that they are corrupted by missionaries.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: And the bible taught the basics of the BB theory 3000 years before these facts were discovered by cosmologists, that points to its divine origin among other things

pos: Not in any honest way it does not, it ridiculous to claim so.

Yes it does if you look at the original Greek and Hebrew. But I am not saying that the writers understood exactly what they were writing at the time. It was only after we learned from God's other book, Nature, that we found out which definition of the Greek and Hebrew words we should use.

ed: Your missing my point, much of the bible was written much closer to the actual events than either Herodotus and Josephus (who are considered generally reliable historical documents)

pos: And that proves what, that doesn't add evidence for any supernatural claim at all, they were just repeating what was heard, first Jewish history, then NT history, just like any other nation or religion claiming supernatural powers from their god.

Umm, parts of their histories are their own eyewitness accounts, especially Josephus and also their own historical research. They are considered generally reliable historical documents and since the Bible was written even closer to the actual events then at the very least it should be considered slightly more reliable than Herodotus and Josephus.

ed: and one of the top criteria for historical accuracy of ancient documents is how close to the time the documents were written to actual events. So the Bible should be considered generally reliable also.

pos: Yes it is but again that does not mean that the supernatural claims can be verified, just that that the original fantasy was repeated with some care and accuracy. One would have thought that a supernatural god of such powers would be able to put these issues beyond doubt.

There are many natural events that have occurred in history that cannot be verified either, but if they come from a source that is recorded close to the events, historians consider it be much more likely to have actually occurred. The reason according to His word, He does not make it beyond doubt, is because He wants us trust Him by faith and not overwhelm our free will. Only through faith can we grow spiritually and that is one of the goals of His creating this type of universe.

ed: They are all galaxies. The classification of stars also follow this pattern.

pos; What pattern ?

See below.

ed: There are billions of objects classified and determined as stars (the unity) but there are different kinds of stars within this unity, this is the diversity.

pos: Yes but diversity simply proves diversity nothing more, it does not imply an intelligent diversity,

Art experts determine who painted a painting by studying the patterns and characteristics of the work and even what paint was used and how. So it is with the universe, it shows a pattern of diversity WITHIN unity. Which just happens to also be nature of the Christian God, ie the Trinity, and no other god of any significant religion. Thereby combined with the cosmological argument that I explained in my previous post means that he cause of the universe is most likely the Triune Christian God.

pos: The universe is a violent unordered place.

Actually no, it is very ordered by the laws of physics. Without which science would be impossible, but God wanted us to do science to understand Him and His word better. So He made the universe orderly by creating the laws of nature, see Jeremiah 33:25.

pos: You only need to look at our own history for that the earth has been hit a few times by objects from space that near enough wiped out all life. Our plates crust like other planets is shifting and dangerous, our weather like other planets can be dangerous and deadly.

Actually if the timing of those objects and even the movements of the plates and the operation of the weather were not just right, life and especially human life could not exist. The probabilities against these things being just right for intelligent life are astronomical and point strongly that even these things point to an intelligent designer who caused these things to happen at just the right times and places.

ed: This pattern is what also led to the science of taxonomy. Mammals are a single group, the unity, but there are many different species of mammals, the diversity.

pos: Yes but all that points to is that evolutionary biology is true, in fact it without that diversity it could not be true.

No, it does not necessarily mean that evolution is true, but it does explain the pattern in nature that Darwin saw and made him THINK it was true. But we could also see the same pattern if there is a Triune single designer utilizing basic body plans just as any single designer would do especially if He was trying to get the point across that there is single designer and not a committee of designers or no designer at all.

 

[possibletarian]

Yes it does if you look at the original Greek and Hebrew. But I am not saying that the writers understood exactly what they were writing at the time. It was only after we learned from God's other book, Nature, that we found out which definition of the Greek and Hebrew words we should use.

Can you give examples ?

Umm, parts of their histories are their own eyewitness accounts

So are many other supernatural claims of other religions, cults, alien abductions etc.

especially Josephus and also their own historical research.

Josephus has no eyewitness account, like you he has what he believe are eyewitness accounts, but like you no evidence

They are considered generally reliable historical documents and since the Bible was written even closer to the actual events then at the very least it should be considered slightly more reliable than Herodotus and Josephus.

They were just re-hash of earlier accounts.
Joseph Smith claimed many things, I don't believe they are true either, but his accounts also have real place's. Smith himself obtained testimonies from eleven witnesses all of whom we have records of actually existing.
But I don't believe their supernatural claims either, even though there is vastly more evidence of eyewitness accounts from people that we knew existed.

There are many natural events that have occurred in history that cannot be verified either,

Can you give one example ? where credible historians believe it really happened rather than saying 'it may have happened, but we would have to see complementary evidence' ?

but if they come from a source that is recorded close to the events, historians consider it be much more likely to have actually occurred.

Like Joseph Smith and the Mormons you mean? the closeness has nothing to do with the truths of the claims, especially fantastic ones.

The reason according to His word, He does not make it beyond doubt, is because He wants us trust Him by faith and not overwhelm our free will.

Utter nonsense, There is a difference between trusting a god, and knowing one exists, as I have already said Adam & Eve knew god existed, yet still used their so called free will, Satan and myriads of angels also knew god existed and it still didn't stop them using their so called free will and follow another.

Only through faith can we grow spiritually and that is one of the goals of His creating this type of universe.

Faith being simply believing, the same can be said of anything one calls a god, right from some type of theism through to some kind of Gia concept.

Again, how do you know it was created by a god?

Art experts determine who painted a painting by studying the patterns and characteristics of the work and even what paint was used and how.

Art is not claiming fantastic supernatural qualities.

So it is with the universe, it shows a pattern of diversity WITHIN unity.

Again this is nonsense to me, again can you explain what you actually mean.

Which just happens to also be nature of the Christian God,

We have yet to establish a god before we can pin characteristics to it.

ie the Trinity, and no other god of any significant religion.

Again how so.

Thereby combined with the cosmological argument that I explained in my previous post means that he cause of the universe is most likely the Triune Christian God.

You haven't explained anything yet, or why a god of any type would be involved much less the so called christain god, and I have no idea what the trinity has to do with anything. Sorry this sounds much more like new-age waffle to me.

Actually no, it is very ordered by the laws of physics.

Again it does not point to a god of any type. In other words the so called laws of physics are mankind's description of how he sees the universe working.

Without which science would be impossible,

Yes it would be impossible to have a working plan of anything without first creating ways to describe it.

but God wanted us to do science to understand Him and His word better. So He made the universe orderly by creating the laws of nature, see Jeremiah 33:25.

It does not say anything other than god established a covenant with day and night, and the fixed laws of heaven and earth. All that is a a man writing about what he believes a god is saying, it simply does not make it true that a god said it.

You can find many such other observational texts in other fantasy and poetry. Many holy books contain similar declarations.

I also trust the night and day to come and go, but I don't need a god to explain it.

Actually if the timing of those objects and even the movements of the plates and the operation of the weather were not just right, life and especially human life could not exist.

Of course life needs good conditions to evolve, but the thing is you saying that your all powerful god could not have made it any other way than the violent chaotic life threatening dangerous mess it is. Maybe your god is bound by man's invention of a descriptive universe, which makes him.. well an invention.

To say that your god could not have made the earth to not have volcanos, floods, and be life threatening, and look to all intents and purposes not created by an intelligent designer is ludicrous.

The probabilities against these things being just right for intelligent life are astronomical

Yes they are, but so is you and me typing these very words, at this this time on this computer, so is everything that happens. No god at all needed for any unlikely event to happen.

and point strongly that even these things point to an intelligent designer who caused these things to happen at just the right times and places.

There are probably billions, nay trillions of planets without life on, no matter which planet life formed on, they would undoubtedly say the same thing, even if they were drastically different.

No, it does not necessarily mean that evolution is true, but it does explain the pattern in nature that Darwin saw and made him THINK it was true.

But there is a wealth of scientific evidence for evolution, none for a god

But we could also see the same pattern if there is a Triune single designer utilizing basic body plans just as any single designer would do especially if He was trying to get the point across that there is single designer and not a committee of designers or no designer at all.

But you can't have a wonderful diversity, and a 'from the same mould' theory at the same time. To prove a diverse god it would surely be more than one common ancestor. Wouldn't each creature be unique and not have evidence of having mutated.
Your explanation almost sounds boring for the type of god (of which there is zero evidence) you are trying to describe.

A chaotic violent universe, a planet that has had been hit by asteroids wiping out vast amounts of life, stars that explode and take the planets with them, life threatening floods, earthquakes, storms.. and eventually a sun that will wipe out all life on earth to me are about as far removed from an all powerful intelligent designer than anyone could image. And earth has only been suitable for life for a short time in it's history, hardly a design.

Evolutions has heaps of evidence, your god does not, none at all.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Diversity does not point to a creator, if so then how so?
What unity are we talking about ?

See my previous post.

pos: Creators ? again a presumption
The universe is a violent, volatile chaotic place as events of the past few weeks have shown even the earth is a hostile place.

No, it operates according to natural laws, otherwise science would be impossible. That is why Christians invented modern science because the bible teaches that God maintains those laws, see Jeremiah 33:25. And even hurricanes were designed to serve a purpose on the earth, they spread nutrients around the earth. If hurricanes didn't exist, then probably humans would not either.

pos: What is a personal being?

A being with a mind, will, conscience, and emotions.

pos: Why does it require a personal creator ?

Because we know from all of human experience that only persons can produce the personal, such as personal communication, personal relationships, and etc.

pos: If your god (one of many claimed) is a personal being, does this mean also he/she could have been created ?

No, because the Christian God does not have a beginning.

pos: You didn't provide any evidence whatsoever of a created universe or a god, merely proclaiming you did is not a reasonable refute.

What you actually did was present some thoughts of yours, none of which in fact point to a god, then magically somewhere down the line decided it was evidence of a god. (that is called a presupposed outcome)

That is not what I did, see my previous post about the law of causality and the BB.

 

[possibletarian]

See my previous post.No, it operates according to natural laws, otherwise science would be impossible. That is why Christians invented modern science because the bible teaches that God maintains those laws,

Islam makes exactly the same claim, for the same reasons.

To say that Christians invented modern science is a bit of a stretch, They built on ancient and pre Christian concepts such as mathematics from the Greeks, ancient Egypt and the middle east. Some methods are actually dated back over 9,000 years (before the bible says the universe even began, if taken literally).

Back to your claim though, the so called developed world had become Christian at this point. The people with the money and resources to further experimental science were Christians by default they didn't invent science.

There is of course plenty of evidence Christianity opposed scientific progress, take Galileo, the church opposed his studies like heliocentrism claiming it was foolish, heretical and in opposition to scripture. Even further they went on to oppose observation of sunspots (it opposed their 'perfect creation' model). Again Christianity opposes evolution, though with mounting evidence and in some cases they have tried to distort, torture and twist it into their creation myth.

see Jeremiah 33:25.

I did read Jeremiah, but it proves absolutely nothing, expect observation, like me seeing the sun come up every morning, or the moon staying where it is and attributing it to the rule of a god of my choice, other holy books talk about the world in the same way.

And even hurricanes were designed to serve a purpose on the earth, they spread nutrients around the earth. If hurricanes didn't exist, then probably humans would not either

I honestly have never heard anyone say that life would be impossible without hurricanes before. All natural powerful disasters move things around they are violent events. They could of course have allowed in some way life to evolve on earth, but again that does not imply a god of any variety.

The point being however that a a god of infinite power, creativity and wisdom could create a much less life threatening and destructive way to do it without randomly killing and bringing misery to his beloved creation. Its absurd to say this is the work of a god who loves us dearly.

A being with a mind, will, conscience, and emotions.

Okay so a brain working

Because we know from all of human experience that only persons can produce the personal, such as personal communication, personal relationships, and etc.

So it's only seen it in the in the human experience?
All personal experiences are are the brain working, absolutely no god needed.

No, because the Christian God does not have a beginning.

How aside from a few words in a really old book, written by men who came across the same problem of casualty do you know this ?
There is no evidence for a god, never mind one that did not have a beginning.

That is not what I did, see my previous post about the law of causality and the BB.

Yes but causality does not imply a god of any variety, much less your god.

 

[Uber Genius]

lPhilosophical view that posits cognitive closure--the idea that the human mind is no more equipped to answer questions about the human condition and the ultimate nature of reality than a mouse would be to solve algebraic equations.

I thoroughly enjoyed your reply. But there is some incoherence in the definition above. Given the cognitive closure you suggest it would not just poison our knowledge about God or the nature of the external world but knowledge about knowledge. Leading to what Roderick Chisholm called, "The Problem of The Criterion."

A short investigation to that work will uncover the epistemic quandary of you cognitive closure.

Further if the free will defense (Plantinga) answers the problem of evil and suffering it is due to God's intent o design a world with free will agents. To turn around an then close down avenues of knowledge as you suggest has an enormous destructive power on free will.

It seems that we can step away from Cartesian certainty without giving up our properly basic understanding of the reality of the past, the external world, other minds, and uniformity across time, etc.

By all means reply with a full-blooded description of the cognitive closure inference if I have mangled it. I enjoy the breadth of your engagement on the topic, epistemically, metaphysically, and theologically.