How did you arrive at Christianity?

[Uber Genius]

As with all knowledge, there is a spectrum that is possible to any group. We also see the very definition of "knowledge" questioned in many fields. Science may be as broadly limited to theories that have not been falsified, are always confirmed experimentally, and have maximal explanatory power. But much of cosmology and cosmogony such as String theory, is not possibly provable in the way I described above.

So what I may count as knowledge of god's existence, you may dismiss as not achieving the lower bound of knowledge, or unjustifiable. The problem the agnostic and atheist have is to limit the damage of their epistemology from destroying all knowledge or most knowledge it seems reasonable to claim.

 

[Silmarien]

As someone who's been around a longer time than yourself Silmarien, I can confirm you will continue fighting your way around the meaning of the universe (images of old Monty Python and Red Dwarf episodes suddenly appeared in my head). Isn't it odd that minds work so differently, I see absolutely no reason to invoke a god to explain the universe, especially the ridiculous ones in holy books around the world, the reason being I simply do not know what existed before this universe came into being. so can make no judgement on what if anything before the natural world there would need to be.

I do however understand why people create gods of all different variety, they have a wondrous universe that needs explaining what better way than to create a super powerful being that made it for us. Of course we would have to create that god as eternal.. otherwise who created god.. and so and so forth.

Eh? I am tentatively fine with the concept of the universe being in some way eternal. Quantum vacuum, chain of universes, or what have you. I suppose I should study the Kalam properly before declaring it unfit, but I'm not sure from where you've gotten the idea that people have declared God eternal to avoid an infinite regress. If it is impossible that something can come of nothing, it follows that something must be eternal.

Most religions do not really explain where the universe comes from, by the way. Mythology usually takes the universe for granted and begins with the creation of the gods, rather than the reverse. Abrahamic religions and Vedanta Hinduism are more of an exception than a rule.

Anger, jealousy, love, hate, vengeance, patience, faithfulness, a whole range. Then you get all the god-only extras omnipotence, immutability, omnipresence all of which are unverifiable of course. I would say gods are made in the image of man with all the powers man could think of as extras.

Are you sure you've read Catholic Scholastics? Because you're really caricaturizing the theology by declaring these ideas to be whatever little extras people managed to think up.

Wow, I would love to hear more about that. and .. does that mean my delicious creams scone and strawberries are not real !! And seriously I would love to know what an Energyist really is

It's a word that I just made up, haha. But I am unsure why materialists focus on matter when we know that matter and energy are ultimately the same thing. I think it's odd that physics keeps on discovering smaller and smaller building blocks--first we had the atom, then the protons, now the quarks, and what next? If we've got an infinite regress going on in the very nature of the material universe, I for one am going to have some serious questions about whether we're looking at anything the right way.

The brain just like a computer can be trained to believe almost anything

Computers don't have beliefs. The physical brain presumably doesn't either, unless our conception of physical matter is horribly wrong.

I understand what you are saying, I've heard various versions of that arguement, certainly it feels as if we are a person. The difference is though until we can show that consciousness comes from elsewhere or give a good enough reason to speculate it does then why add complications. It's very interesting to think out of the box (pun intended) on this one as it were and I admit to doing it myself even wondering about why i wonder !!

You think that people who disagree with the popular model of reality should just sit down, speculate privately, and not add complications? That is one of the most anti-intellectual things I have heard on this forum, almost Galileo-level anti-intellectual, so... congratulations, I guess.

I don't think simply throwing a creator into the process of discovery is helpful, no one is hand waving, so far we have not discovered or had any real reason to believe that consciousness does not reside in a brain. There is even some research that shows a chemical process takes place before we have a thought even. I found these articles interesting, though there are many others.

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will

https://phys.org/news/2010-03-free-illusion-biologist.html

This quite nicely demonstrates my problem with modern "skepticism." It's very much one-sided, as independent thought and actual reflection disappears once people start tossing around scientific studies to support safe alternatives to anything that smells of theism.

The problem with the study mentioned in the first article is two-fold. For one, it is impossible to pinpoint when someone decides to lift their hand--you can judge when the brain activity occurred and when the hand moved, but you can't judge which of those two places better corresponds to when the decision occurred. There is also the question of reflexes and unconscious behavior to take into account. We do a lot of things without actually thinking about it, including moving our hands around. Spikes in brain activity could be expected to accompany unconscious urges, but people can choose whether or not to act upon any given urge. You would therefore expect a delay between a build up of electrical energy and the conscious decision to act upon it, in the situations where we are conscious of our acts.

I do not see an argument in the second article. Just someone tossing around scientific credentials to make sweeping metaphysical claims because the prospect of having to readjust our assumptions is so very frightening. In other words, scientism. Again, I feel like this is a 15th century debate over heliocentricism, which is precisely why I hate materialism. It's like the atheist inquisition, I swear.

You have a delightful approach to the world around you Silmarien, never settle for belief, there are always too many questions around the corner.

Everyone settles for belief, whatever that particular belief may be.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have presented several evidences and you have not refuted any of them.

Hmmm, I would challenge you to show one piece of evidence that no one here has refuted...

 

[Silmarien]

Lol time out!! You just went from total immersion French, to learning Italian haha?? You are so smart! Are you trying to learn all the romance languages? Awhile ago I went to check if you had an intro post and I think I saw a post from you in Spanish. That's awesome, I always wanted to learn a different language. A curfew?? Oh hell no!!! Lol.


Are you saying this because of something specific about them, or are you just pointing out that they too are an ancient religion that survives?


Is it uncommon for a lineage to survive thousands of years after national destruction, or are you just talking about the survival of religious sects? I actually wish my knowledge was better here, I know that Israel is an interesting case because of the duality of 'Being Jewish.' That can be a religious claim, or an ethnic claim. I'm friends with a few Jews who are strictly adherents to the religion of the NFL lol. As well as there being certain medical conditions that ethnic Jews are more prone to, etc. Is that the case also with Zoroastrianism and Mandaeism?

I wasn't trying to lift out the point that it's so impressive that the Jews are an ancient religion that has survived as much as I was trying to point out that building up the context of that survival makes it impressive. The context is juxtaposing the 'Biblical Chosen People' theory with the literal history of those people. The God of Abraham was always saying 'I will not forsake my people.' This God constantly allowed their defeat in battle when they were not obedient, cursed the people when disobedient, and rewarded them with victory and blessed them when obedient. And this 'Tall Tale' God said that his own people will reject his Messiah, and that the gentiles will except Him, that His message will go out to the ends of the Earth, and although his own people will reject him (which always resulted in bad results for them in the Bible), in the end he will not forsake them.

Under these (and more) contexts, when we look at the REAL history of these people, it's awfully fishy how it plays out in similar fashion. Ok, just for starters, these people just happen to be one of these lineages/religions that survived after national destruction. 10 of the 12 original tribes were forgotten to history after Assyria conquered the north alone (just as an example of how conquests usually play out in a people being lost to history). The south was more so captured in waves, but the decisive event was the destruction of the Temple in 586 BC by Babylon. No problem, Jewish lineage/religion survived, the Temple and nation are reinstated. In 70 AD Rome destroys the Temple again, the major Diaspora begins. Some remained. In 132 a revolt against Rome led to the Romans decimating the Jewish community, and renaming Jerusalem and Judea to obliterate Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Jews experienced one of the longest and most scattered diasporas in history, along with a steep demographic decline. As a result of endless massacres, epidemics, conversions, etc, they were down to approximately 1.2 million in 650 AD. So in this context, their survival is at the very least impressive.

Today, they are the only nation that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. Again, I'm not claiming that extraordinary historical 'Luck' translates into a religion being true, I'm just saying that the predictions of their fate from there ancient God, and how there literal history played out, and how it now sits, is at the very least interesting.


I think that you missed something major here! It's on the tip of your nose lol. Here it is...the Jews ARE the world's dominant religions!!!

If this 'Myth' happened to be true about 'A Chosen People of God' whose story was prophesied to start with Abraham, and eventually go out unto all the world...would you or would you not expect it to constantly be in the world news by the 21st century? Would a humble secluded ancient Zoroastrian religion fit the bill? Or would you expect it to be everywhere by now? If the Jews or Israel are not in the news, this Jewish spin off called Catholicism is...an organized religion based on this claimed Messiah out of the same religion of Abraham. If Catholocism isn't in the news Christianity is. If Christianity isn't in the news Islam is. Islam claims Jesus as one of the prophets, Islam too is going back to Ishmael, the son of Abraham, same religious core. All of these spin offs are precisely like your signature "There is nothing new under the sun." In Jesus' time we had the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, Herodians, false prophets (Islam), etc. Each of these spin offs in Jesus' time has something of equal comparison to what we find today, all anchored into the God of Abraham, yet have been corrupted in various ways. Jesus would definitely be whipping out his 'Whitewashed tombs' and 'Brood of viper' rebukes on these groups today, just like in his time.

Anti-Semitism is a fascinating parallel between the message of this ancient God of Israel and the literal history of Israel. God's chosen people having a major target on their backs (demonic) BECAUSE they are God's chosen people! That old religious story line matches up nicely with the bizarre extreme reality of Anti-Semitism.

I find it fascinating that Jesus the Messiah arrived during the Roman Pax Romana. The perfect time in history. Many nations of the world were now under one umbrella, there was a common language, a common currency, travel was at it's easiest in the ancient world, Rome was in it's heyday of peace. Now, here's where the chicken vs the egg argument can come in lol. You can argue with me that it was BECAUSE of the Pax Romana that Christianity found itself in the perfect place in history to have it's message go out unto the ends of the world (at that time), and I can argue that NO, it was God placing Jesus His Messiah in the perfect position in history! Isn't it fascinating how one person can never pin the other person down? There's always that intellectual free will in either direction!

On a personal note, this observation about literal Jewish history really helped a facet of my Jesus studies. I find it fascinating that there is this peculiar silver lining that comes out of the Jewish rejection, and flat out hatred of Jesus (as claimed Messiah). I already mentioned Dr Michael Brown to you as the person who convinced me that there was merit in the arguments that Jesus was prophesied about in the Old Testament. I find it fascinating that the Jew's intense hatred for Jesus absolutely guarantees us that the OT is safe from Jesus interpolation into the OT. Who in there right mind would ever think that orthodox Jews would allow Christians to paint Jesus into their holy books? The notion is absurd. This was very important to me in my study of prophecy. The OT is very old and I have a critical historical side (not as bad as you), I do doubt it at times, I might have thrown the towel in on prophecy study if it was not for this interesting observation. It's as if the Jewish hatred for Jesus created this huge protective brick wall between the OT and NT. So that even if you have major historical doubts about the OT, you can still have trust in the purity of lifting out Jesus prophecies from the OT if you find them to be impressive. Just another interesting observation that I see (that helped out my skeptical side). I know that you are a postmodern and would really struggle with the OT in a historical sense!

Thanks to this silver lining of this Jewish hatred for Jesus, you are literally limited to only accusations of the NT writers taking the OT out of context, or misquoting it. But nobody argues in the other direction. And this is WAY more favorable to us historically because the NT is much easier to get a historical grip on than the OT (if you are critical/postmodern, I know a lot of Christians aren't). Having said that, @Uber Genius can defend the accusations against NT writers 'Painting Jesus Into the OT' better than me! I've already quoted him recently, I'll requote him...



EDIT...by the way I'm not trying to knock the OT as much as i'm just trying to play Devil's advocate on it and meet a postmodern halfway.

I speak Spanish, a fair amount of French, and can get by in Italian and Portuguese. Spanish is the love of my life, but other than that, I'm kind of sick of the Romance languages, haha. Next up is going to be Greek, for the obvious reasons. And because I like lurking around Orthodox churches, haha. Well, the parish I visit is technically Russian, but there are Greeks there!

Anyway, I am an idiot and managed to delete the reply I had written out to you. So, a brief recap, you have some really interesting thoughts in this post, and I'm certainly sympathetic to a fair amount of it. I lean a bit too much towards deism right now to really be comfortable with the sort of radical reimagining of history that would be necessary if you're right, but I honestly expect to be in that odd place where I simultaneously think that Christianity is true and false for quite some time.

 

[possibletarian]

A couple resources:

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/arguments-agnosticism

An Argument for Agnosticism
According to one relatively modest form of agnosticism, neither versatile theism nor its denial, global atheism, is known to be true. Robin Le Poidevin (2010: 76) argues for this position as follows:

• (1)There is no firm basis upon which to judge that theism or atheism is intrinsically more probable than the other.

• (2)There is no firm basis upon which to judge that the total evidence favors theism or atheism over the other.

It follows from (1) and (2) that

• (3)There is no firm basis upon which to judge that theism or atheism is more probable than the other.

It follows from (3) that

• (4)Agnosticism is true: neither theism nor atheism is known to be true.

Le Poidevin takes “theism” in its broadest sense (which I call to refer to the proposition that there exists a being that is the ultimate and intentional cause of the universe’s existence and the ultimate source of love and moral knowledge (2010: 52). (He doesn’t use the term “versatile theism”, but this would be his account of its meaning.) By the “intrinsic probability” of a proposition, he means, roughly, the probability that a proposition has “before the evidence starts to come in” (2010: 49). This probability depends solely on a priori considerations like the intrinsic features of the content of the proposition in question (e.g., the size of that content).

From Stanford's encyclopedia of philosophy on atheism and agnosticism.

Thanks for that site, it has plenty of material what I appreciate most is that the video's generally are short and to the point. I'm on Holiday this week so I will make a point of looking through them.

 

[Dirk1540]

I speak Spanish, a fair amount of French, and can get by in Italian and Portuguese.

Oh wow, for someone who just speaks Spanish, French, and a little bit of Italian and Portuguese your ability to read & write in English is incredible!! Haha.

Anyway, I am an idiot and managed to delete the reply I had written out to you.

That's ok, I might actually prefer that, if you accidentally deleted your rebuttals than I feel like I win lol.

I lean a bit too much towards deism right now

Been there!

but I honestly expect to be in that odd place where I simultaneously think that Christianity is true and false for quite some time.

Been there too!!!!

Hey the books that you and @2PhiloVoid recommended to me for atonement theology and the problem of suffering came today! Thanks for the help!! I got The Brothers Karamazov, Christus Victor: 3 Types of Atonement, NT Wright Simply Good News, and Will God Heal Me? Ron Dunn. The reviews for Brothers Karamazov had some controversy over which translation to get, but it was suggested to get McDuff if you're not familiar with Russian novels so I went with him. So hopefully this stuff will give me some great stuff to think about!

 

[Dirk1540]

I would strongly recommend Antony Flew (before he converted to theism from atheism), j.l. Mackie, j.h. Sobel, Kai Nielsen, and Graham Oppy to your examination. They provide some strong objections to the theistic inference without leaning on rhetorical devices and logical fallacy.

Thanks Uber, it's always good to hear about the favorite recommendations of certain people in here. I'll check these authors out. The more time I spend in this forum the more hungry I get for better philosophical & logical articulation like you people. I feel like it takes me 2 paragraphs to express something that you guys can say in a few sentences (and that's if I can express it at all). It would also be nice for me to improve my knowledge on philosophy of science as well.. I have Kalem argument material on the way from WLC! I've eyed up his course for years but never pulled the trigger.

7 current conservative scholarly views on Genesis 1 and not one of them denies the use of metaphoric language...

1. Literal Interpretation
   (b) Gap Interpretation
   (c) Day-Gap Interpretation
   (d) Day-Age Interpretation
   (e) Revelation-Day Interpretation
   (f) Literary Framework Interpretation (g) Functional Creation Interpretation (h) Hebrew Creation Myth Interpretation

Sorry what exactly is this referring to? Is this a book/article with 7 scholar's views on these interpretations? If so can you point me to the source? Thanks.

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/arguments-agnosticism

Well looks like I'm out more money lol. The cosmos, consciousness, and meaning DVD sets look awesome on this site, thanks.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You don't understand the cosmological argument?

poss: I find it very unconvincing.

That is irrelevant, the question is can you refute it?

poss; Here is an whole book of books including from..

Ancient Egyptian Religion (Pyramid Texts),
Zoroastrianism (Avesta),
Hinduism (Vedas),
Bud-dhism (Tipitaka),
Confucianism (Five Classics),
Sikhism (Guru Granth Sahib),
Chris-tianity (Bible),
Islam (Quran),
Druidism (Mabinogion)
Maya Religion (Popol Vuh)

Except for the Bible none of those books teach the three most important facts about the universe, ie that it had a definite beginning from nothing detectable, that it is expanding, and that it is winding down energetically. Maybe the Koran but it is plagiarized from the bible.

pos: and in the interpretations of those books. These books include various information on the creation of the Universe, Sun and Moon, the age of the Universe, Cosmic sizes, understanding about the planets, stars, Milky Way and description of the Heavens in different religions.

Many of them go much further in their understanding of the universe than the bible including the size of the moon and other matters. A simple google say of Mayan astronomy will show you how childish the biblical view of the heavens is.

Again none of them have accurate information about the three most important truths about the universe as I stated above. Only the Bible correctly interpreted with the help of God's other book, Nature.

 

[Uber Genius]

Thanks Uber, it's always good to hear about the favorite recommendations of certain people in here. I'll check these authors out. The more time I spend in this forum the more hungry I get for better philosophical & logical articulation like you people. I feel like it takes me 2 paragraphs to express something that you guys can say in a few sentences (and that's if I can express it at all). It would also be nice for me to improve my knowledge on philosophy of science as well.. I have Kalem argument material on the way from WLC! I've eyed up his course for years but never pulled the trigger.


Sorry what exactly is this referring to? Is this a book/article with 7 scholar's views on these interpretations? If so can you point me to the source? Thanks.

Well looks like I'm out more money lol. The cosmos, consciousness, and meaning DVD sets look awesome on this site, thanks.

The recommended authors are all atheists or agnostics who represent the best arguments for those respective inferences.

The seven theories on how to accurately interpret the Genesis creation account are found on Reasonablefaith.org defenders 2 class "evolution creation" series

 

[Dirk1540]

The recommended authors are all atheists or agnostics who represent the best arguments for those respective inferences.

The seven theories on how to accurately interpret the Genesis creation account are found on Reasonablefaith.org defenders 2 class "evolution creation" series

Thanks! I know Dawkins and I know Hitchens, in my earlier years Hitchens was a lot tougher for me. Time to stretch my comfort zone some more.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh wow, for someone who just speaks Spanish, French, and a little bit of Italian and Portuguese your ability to read & write in English is incredible!! Haha.

That's ok, I might actually prefer that, if you accidentally deleted your rebuttals than I feel like I win lol.

Been there!

Been there too!!!!

Hey the books that you and @2PhiloVoid recommended to me for atonement theology and the problem of suffering came today! Thanks for the help!! I got The Brothers Karamazov, Christus Victor: 3 Types of Atonement, NT Wright Simply Good News, and Will God Heal Me? Ron Dunn. The reviews for Brothers Karamazov had some controversy over which translation to get, but it was suggested to get McDuff if you're not familiar with Russian novels so I went with him. So hopefully this stuff will give me some great stuff to think about!

I guess I need to pick up a copy of the Brothers Karamazov at some point soon. So, McDuff is the one to go with, you think?

 

[Silmarien]

I guess I need to pick up a copy of the Brothers Karamazov at some point soon. So, McDuff is the one to go with, you think?

I think I was told to get the Richard Pevear translation when I read it in college. At least, unless they all have the same cover--I kind of gave my old one away.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I was told to get the Richard Pevear translation when I read it in college. At least, unless they all have the same cover--I kind of gave my old one away.

Ok. Thank you for the suggestion, Silmarien. I just did a side-by-side comparison of the two translations on Amazon, and I'm going to have to decide if I want the more 'literal' translation, or the one that seems to be a bit more of a 'dynamic equivalent' and a slightly easier read. Since I'm not in a rush, I have some time to think about it ...

 

[Dirk1540]

I guess I need to pick up a copy of the Brothers Karamazov at some point soon. So, McDuff is the one to go with, you think?

Well as far as Amazon reviews the opinions were that Pevear is the most true form, and you might lose some of the small meanings if you get McDuff, but McDuff is less prone to getting confused in a sentence if you're not familiar with Russian literature. Of course there's the option to get both and read Pevear 2nd if it's SO good (according to WLC, @Silmarien , @anonymous person). Maybe they can chime in on which translation they like best!

EDIT...i posted this before Silmarien posted. I wonder what version @anonymous person has?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well as far as Amazon reviews the opinions were that Pevear is the most true form, and you might lose some of the small meanings if you get McDuff, but McDuff is less prone to getting confused in a sentence if you're not familiar with Russian literature. Of course there's the option to get both and read Pevear 2nd if it's SO good (according to WLC, @Silmarien , @anonymous person). Maybe they can chime in on which translation they like best!

EDIT...i posted this before Silmarien posted. I wonder what version @anonymous person has?

....eh....I don't think I want to read both translations. If that novel were a bit smaller, I might be tempted to.

 

[Dirk1540]

....eh....I don't think I want to read both translations. If that novel were a bit smaller, I might be tempted to.

That is a factor, mine arrived it's huge!

 

[Silmarien]

I've only read the one translation, so I can't really say which one is better. And that was with the Russian department, so they were obviously going to be picky about staying as faithful as possible to the original.

 

[Silmarien]

[Blasted hostel internet]

 

[Silmarien]

[Blasted hostel internet]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I was told to get the Richard Pevear translation when I read it in college. At least, unless they all have the same cover--I kind of gave my old one away.

....hmmm.....well now. Those Cliff Notes for the book are looking mighty tempting! Please pray that I don't succumb.