Christian Arguements

[God v2.03 build 6]

Theres one thing that really bugs me about discussing issues with Christians. From my point of view, that of an agnostic bordering on atheist, it's really a very irritating thing. Many (notice I did not say all)christians respond to others arguements using the assumption that god is real. Now, this may sound rather stupid to you christians, but for me its a humongous assumption to make. And frankly, how can you really argue against something when it assumes that an all-powerful being is real? Just a thought...wanted to see if anyone else had thoughts on this...

 

[Mephster]

And I assume the Christians that you talk to say: "You make an assumption that God is not real."

(Minimally, is not the conception of God real?)

btw, 'arguments'.

 

[Ben johnson]

We are equally offended by those who NATURALLY assume there IS no God. Take evolution for instance --- atheists have successfully promulgated the idea that "mere CONSIDERATION of an extra-dimensional-engineer is LUDICROUS SUPERSTITION"; when many scientists find the evidence far more convincing for "ID"...

 

[Magisterium]

Theres one thing that really bugs me about discussing issues with Christians. From my point of view, that of an agnostic bordering on atheist, it's really a very irritating thing. Many (notice I did not say all)christians respond to others arguements using the assumption that god is real. Now, this may sound rather stupid to you christians, but for me its a humongous assumption to make. And frankly, how can you really argue against something when it assumes that an all-powerful being is real? Just a thought...wanted to see if anyone else had thoughts on this...

Good question. However, the reality of God is not merely assumed. It is actually a scientific and philosophical necessity. Following is a loose paraphrase of the first paragraph of Aquinas' shorter suma which lays out the reasonable necessity of God's being.

We observe that all things that move, are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements, the the stronger move the weaker. Even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be reasonably traced back into infinity. This is because a thing that is moved by another is a sort of instrument. If the series of movers and things moved are infinite, there is no first mover. In such a case, all movers and things moved, would all be instruments. Even the unlearned are able to perceive how ridiculous it would be to suppose that instruments move without being set in motion by some principal agent. Such a scenario would be akin to a saw or hatchet in a carpenter's shop performing it's function without the carpenter. Accordingly where there is movement, there must reasonably exist a "first mover" that is above all the rest; and this being we call God.
As we examine the "first mover" some things are resonably apparent. Perhaps the most compelling is the necessary intelligence of the "first mover". This truth lies in the fact that the first mover was moved by nothing (or else he would not be the first mover). As such, the initial movement was necessarilly decided.

This line of understanding continues brilliantly to cover the simplicity of God, his eternal nature, his divine essence, and many other aspects of his being.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ben I don't mean to sound condescending but I believe you are mistaken.

From the National Academy of Sciences(the nation's leading scientific institute):

Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?

No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. For example, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." But Gould, an accomplished paleontologist and eloquent educator about evolution, was arguing about how evolution takes place. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is slow and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs--an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. As Gould writes in response, "This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose--to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself." Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:

Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html



And from Scientific America (this nation's leading science magazine):

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2


There is no reason to believe scientists are doubting evolution and favoring creationism.

And evolution is not merely an atheist position. In fact most of the time I debate with christians any attempt to link christianity with creationism is viewed as a straw man. Here are a couple examples of where this happened on another forum the first with CEO_ESQ:

I have read that a fairly large minority of Catholics (perhaps as much as around 40%) do not fully believe in evolution. However, there is no institutional religious reason for this, because their faith does not require this view. As far as I am aware, the Church has never taught that evolutionary theory was incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Indeed, Catholic schools were not behind secular state schools in adopting the widespread teaching of evolutionary theory. (source)

As you can see the man has said that the Church never had a major problem with evolutionary theory, I would love for someone here to give me more evidence to the contrary.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24015&pagenumber=2


The second examples are from a Christian on the board known as "Lief Roar" who attempts to scold me when I try to link Christianity to creationism by saying:

Creationists are, in the main, a phenomena located only in the US. As far as I know, most large Christian churches have no problem with the theory of evolution.

and:

The only sizeable Christian Church I know about which denies evolution in its doctrine is Jehove Witnesses - a Church which I hope you will accept is not considered to be mainstream. I know that the Catholic church officially accepts evolution as not being contrary to its teachings, and as far as I know, most of the European protestant churches do the same (but I'm not really in a position to know that for a fact.)

So Jehovah Witnesses are the main creationist Church, I don't believe it. But this Christian seems to think so.


Even the Catholic Church now seems to support evolution, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

and

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

Though in a mixed manner, much to Lief Roar's and Ceo's disapointment I suppose.


In any event I wish Christians would make up their minds on whether by linking christianity to evolution I am attacking a straw man, or whether by ignoring creationism as a Christian position I am begging the question/spreading atheist propoganda.

 

[God v2.03 build 6]

Good question. However, the reality of God is not merely assumed. It is actually a scientific and philosophical necessity. Following is a loose paraphrase of the first paragraph of Aquinas' shorter suma which lays out the reasonable necessity of God's being.

We observe that all things that move, are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements, the the stronger move the weaker. Even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be reasonably traced back into infinity. This is because a thing that is moved by another is a sort of instrument. If the series of movers and things moved are infinite, there is no first mover. In such a case, all movers and things moved, would all be instruments. Even the unlearned are able to perceive how ridiculous it would be to suppose that instruments move without being set in motion by some principal agent. Such a scenario would be akin to a saw or hatchet in a carpenter's shop performing it's function without the carpenter. Accordingly where there is movement, there must reasonably exist a "first mover" that is above all the rest; and this being we call God.
As we examine the "first mover" some things are resonably apparent. Perhaps the most compelling is the necessary intelligence of the "first mover". This truth lies in the fact that the first mover was moved by nothing (or else he would not be the first mover). As such, the initial movement was necessarilly decided.

This line of understanding continues brilliantly to cover the simplicity of God, his eternal nature, his divine essence, and many other aspects of his being.

Know where I can read the rest then? So far, it's still assuming that all those things occur because of god or a god, which is still a large assumption in my book.

 

[God v2.03 build 6]

We are equally offended by those who NATURALLY assume there IS no God. Take evolution for instance --- atheists have successfully promulgated the idea that "mere CONSIDERATION of an extra-dimensional-engineer is LUDICROUS SUPERSTITION"; when many scientists find the evidence far more convincing for "ID"...

Well, be that as it may, you are assuming something I cannot see. I have never immediately disregarded the possibility that god is real, however, I don't take well to people who completely base their arguements around the assumption that it is "this way" and no other.

If I believed large purple elephants were running around the streets, I could also easily become offended when you assumed that there were not.

 

[My Higher Self]

We are equally offended by those who NATURALLY assume there IS no God.

I don't understand either of ya....I mean there is no proof one way or another, so agnostic really seems the way to go. I mean, I see no proof of a god, so I doubt it, but one look around the universe and it seems difficult to refute (plus some personal happenings through out my life)

Take evolution for instance --- atheists have successfully promulgated the idea that "mere CONSIDERATION of an extra-dimensional-engineer is LUDICROUS SUPERSTITION"; when many scientists find the evidence far more convincing for "ID"...

And to me, this is a strange stance......how can you (being anyone), as a mortal being, think that you can even begin to understand the workings of god? I mean really, when christians don't understand something, or when something in the bible defies science, the first thing said is "well, he's god he can do that". So why can't he create Adam and Eve through evolution...how do you know that Adam and Eve weren't the first of Homosapiens? Because the bible tells us so you say? Just remember, it may have been inspired by god, but it was still written by man.

 

[Knight]

What evedince would convince you that God does exist?

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

What evedince would convince you that God does exist?

This question is not worth asking. You can not "prove" god to someone. God needs to be found in your heart, alone.

 

[Knight]

This question is not worth asking. You can not "prove" god to someone. God needs to be found in your heart, alone.

I did not say proof I said evedince.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I guess my point was, why are you asking?

 

[Knight]

The complaint in the OP was that Christians always make an assumption that God exists when dealing with non-Christians. This seemed to disturb the original poster as well as several others. I was tryin the address the core of this issue.

I was asking a logical question.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I didn't think it was illogical. I was just reading too far into your post. and doing a bad job of it..my mind reading skills are not the best lol

Think i kind of mis read it too, im playing with my son and chatting on the phone and watchin tv while browsing these forums. makes for a little mis interpretation.

I think i thought you were going to take it to the point where you would "help him find god" ...sorry for confusion..i will think before typing next time

 

[tcampen]

When asking for "evidence" of god, I think it is necessary to define which "god" or "gods" you are referring to. Some use the idea of "intellegent design" as proof of god, but even accepting that argument as valid, it does nothing to tell us what kind of "god" or "gods" exist.

Are we talking about evidence for a supernatural power greater than ourselves, or evidence for a certian interpretation of the Christian god?

But either way, the only real evidence to believe in such things that will ever be convincing to the individual will be evidence that is ultimately subjective anyway - usually personal revelation. There is no "logical" argument that I can see to pursuade one to believe something supernatural - it just doesn't work that way.

 

[Knight]

When asking for "evidence" of god, I think it is necessary to define which "god" or "gods" you are referring to. Some use the idea of "intellegent design" as proof of god, but even accepting that argument as valid, it does nothing to tell us what kind of "god" or "gods" exist.

I think it's safe to say that we're referring to the Christian God of the Bible.

Are we talking about evidence for a supernatural power greater than ourselves, or evidence for a certian interpretation of the Christian god?

But either way, the only real evidence to believe in such things that will ever be convincing to the individual will be evidence that is ultimately subjective anyway - usually personal revelation. There is no "logical" argument that I can see to pursuade one to believe something supernatural - it just doesn't work that way.

The question is quite simple. What evedince would convince you that God exists?

 

[Mephster]

Good question. However, the reality of God is not merely assumed. It is actually a scientific and philosophical necessity. Following is a loose paraphrase of the first paragraph of Aquinas' shorter suma which lays out the reasonable necessity of God's being.

This line of understanding continues brilliantly to cover the simplicity of God, his eternal nature, his divine essence, and many other aspects of his being.

Well, both in the Summa Theologiae and the Contra Gentiles. However, Aquinas himself reminds the reader that these are NOT proofs, but WAYS to prove....

The Prima Via, which you posted, can be defeated with evidence of an Infinite regress. (Non abstract e.g. Mathematical). On the micro-level, it seems, truly, that electrons and quarks (gluons and photons not withstanding) are the terminus of the line. On the Macro-level? Not yet scientifically found.

The prima via is also defeated if the facticity of motion is denied. (Cp. Parmenides).

 

[God v2.03 build 6]

What evedince would convince you that God does exist?

I don't know, I haven't heard or seen it yet. I find much more evidence for the non-existence of god than the other way around. In fact, I've never heard any arguement that led me to believe god may exist. The only reason I remain agnostic and not atheist is simply becuase anything is possible. However, I still find the existence of god, especially in a christian sense, to be terribly improbable.

 

[God v2.03 build 6]

The complaint in the OP was that Christians always make an assumption that God exists when dealing with non-Christians. This seemed to disturb the original poster as well as several others. I was tryin the address the core of this issue.

I was asking a logical question.

Well, I don't really think the core of the issue is so much what evidence would convince me that god exists...no more than it being what evidence would convince you that he doesn't.

My issue is how do you make progress in a discussion when someone assumes the existence of an all-powerful being, such as god? Gets a bit frustrating, you know? Then again, maybe my expectations are unreasonable, what do you think?

 

[Mephster]

But... . as a theist. . . . I am not "assuming" belief in a Transcedent Being... I am maintaining it as a ontological reality. Basically, when the Christian talks to you, for example, he is probably most frustrated by your assumption that God does not exist.

Also, any educated and reasonable theist can continue a discussion based on a variety of world-views. It is only someone who is stubborn and cannot grabble with formal logic that sometimes cannot understand what your position might entail.

Further, it really does depend on the discussion. So what sort of discussion causes you this frustration?

In dealing with non-Christians, I never presume to think that they maintain a position of theism. Of course any Christian on the mission to evangelize you WILL point out God's existence. Yet, discoursing with your average Christian on any number of topics won't always commence in this way.