Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not versed well enough in the various world religions to speak on their take on our reason for existence. I am however well versed in the bible and have studied it for many, many years. On that I can speak with some modicum of understanding. How is it that prophets speaking about the Messiah and how he would be killed happened exactly how Yeshua was killed by the Romans? How is it that the Jewish Prophet in the book of Isaiah names King Cyrus by NAME as the man who would allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem 150 years before Cyrus birth?
Science is utterly worthless when asking question's "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
Atheists make the deeply flawed mistake of then arguing that since science can not address these question at all, that therefore there must be no purpose in our being here. By using the wrong tool to ask a philosophical question you come away with an inherently flawed answer just as you stated.
I do find it interesting and noteworthy that if one examines the ORDER in which Genesis gives account of creation it would happen exactly in the order in which one would expect it to occur scientifically. What are the odds that ancient man would know this?
Lastly, you will find that much of the field of study of molecular genetics is filled with both highly respected scientist who are believers but more importantly a significant absence of atheists as a percentage of the population of scientist in that particular discipline. The reason is quite simple... evolution does not conform at all in that particular field of research and study. Most researchers out rightly reject Darwinist views on evolution simply because it can not be supported at all based upon our current understanding at the molecular level.
Evolution states that things go from simple to complex... yet the deeper we look at the molecular level we see incredible complexity much of which we still do not understand. If evolution were in fact how things happened then random mutations in DNA would likely produce positive results. To date, we have no evidence at all that supports such a view and in fact what we do have evidence of is that random mutation of DNA every single time produces a highly negative result.
Of course none of this is going to change your world view as the truth is that I have never met a single person that rejects Gd on a rational, logical reasoned research of the evidence. People reject Gd because of the implications... namely that if Gd does exist then I exist as a by product of his creation and his plan. That then means I have to do something about that fact.... its far easier to simply deny he exists and spray justifications around that sound good but actually hold no water upon closer examination.
There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.
“No clue” is certainly the most truthful statement. There are no credible hypotheses to define the issues I pointed out, and certainly nothing that disproves “God”, especially when considering the fact that “God” is the very name many use in reference to those inconceivable events. Even atheists accept the events by faith in the reports of others, and therefore cannot deny there is a cause, clueless as to the parameters of that cause as they may be. “God is the cause” is certainly a viable and appropriate declaration. Therefore, denying the cause is “God” is futile and amounts to “the cause didn't cause it”. Now if you were to ask what the essence of “God” is, what the “parameters” of God might be, most would admit they don't have a clue, yet as the existence of the universe as understood in the Big Bang theory evidences the fact that a cause exists, denial of the cause amounts to nonsense. "God" as term avoided by atheists and dispised by antitheists, yet "Cause" can be denied by neither, and certainly not disproved. They're arguments amount to semantics.
Then why isn't EVERYONE given this gift of faith. The Bible says God wants no one to be lost.
There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.
Define "God" in a manner that can be tested. You can define what you believe in, can you not?“No clue” is certainly the most truthful statement. There are no credible hypotheses to define the issues I pointed out, and certainly nothing that disproves “God”,
Or, when they hit their thumb with the hammer for the second time. Ouch.especially when considering the fact that “God” is the very name many use in reference to those inconceivable events.
Where do you get this assumptions that all atheists are astrophysicists?Even atheists accept the events by faith in the reports of others, and therefore cannot deny there is a cause, clueless as to the parameters of that cause as they may be. “God is the cause” is certainly a viable and appropriate declaration.
I do not deny it. I am skeptical of unevidenced religious assertions.Therefore, denying the cause is “God” is futile
Or a case was not needed. Or, did it have to be a god?, Or, we just don't know.and amounts to “the cause didn't cause it”.
Can you not define this thing that you believe in?Now if you were to ask what the essence of “God” is, what the “parameters” of God might be, most would admit they don't have a clue,
No, it is only evidence that supports the standard model of cosmology, and a 13+ billion-year-old cosmos.yet as the existence of the universe as understood in the Big Bang theory evidences the fact that a cause exists,
Are you our new arbiter of "sense" for this forum?denial of the cause amounts to nonsense.
The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. But then, the unfalsifiable is of no scientific significance."God" as term avoided by atheists and dispised by antitheists, yet "Cause" can be denied by neither, and certainly not disproved.
Pretend that you are participating in a philosophy forum.They're arguments amount to semantics.
I read of an American missionary in Mozambique who preached the gospel to a village for the first time. A mother pushed through to the front with a baby in her arms and said to her. “My son has died (she had the little baby in her arms) and the witch doctors can do nothing for him. Can your God do anything? If he can I will follow your God.”
To cut a long story short the missionary believed God could do miracles and prayed for the little boy. He stirred and came back to life and as a result the whole village became followers of the Christian God. Some people do need evidence. Some don’t. And please note evidence isn’t necessarily x + y - 2 = a fish.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Christians would say that the Bible is the Word of God, but an individual if disciplined and in full belief should be able to express words with the Spirit of God. There is a purity that comes from within.Then why isn't EVERYONE given this gift of faith. The Bible says God wants no one to be lost.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Would you rather that we not revise theories in light of new evidence?By attempting to argue that Gd must fit into the scientific box.
The scientific box is a flawed one because it is constantly changing as man gains a greater understanding of the universe in which he lives.
For example?Evidence of the creator is all around us but most reject it.
How does this point to a creator?To this day science has no clue what so ever as to what actually caused the spark of life to happen on earth.
If I had a penny for every time a Christian has said this to me...LOL No you dont... your's is not a head problem... its a heart problem.
Ignoring for a moment the paucity of evidence for such a resurrection actually happening, why does him rising from the dead indicate Godhood?Either Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) rose from the dead or he didn't. There is 0 question that he lived. He made extraordinary claims and lived from all accounts an extraordinary life....
If he rose (He did) then he is GD and everything in scripture is truth. If he didn't, its all fables and stories and a waste of time.
I don't think anyone denies that science is fallible.Science is fallible because our understanding of our own existence and the environment around us is incomplete and that is just a plain fact. As our tools and technology improves all we find are more complex difficult questions. It is my firm belief we will NEVER have all the answers. Man does not have the mind of Gd and it is beyond our grasp or ability to full know.
Has religion yielded any facts about "the realm of the spiritual"?You are right that "religion" has yield no facts about the natural world around us... just as science has yield NO FACTS about the realm of the spiritual. You might as well try to plow a field with a hammer.... I suspect you wont get very far with that.
It's easy for writers to "fulfil" prophecies that they have access to beforehand.Your understanding of things that are spiritual are woefully flawed. I'm not versed well enough in the various world religions to speak on their take on our reason for existence. I am however well versed in the bible and have studied it for many, many years. On that I can speak with some modicum of understanding. How is it that prophets speaking about the Messiah and how he would be killed happened exactly how Yeshua was killed by the Romans? How is it that the Jewish Prophet in the book of Isaiah names King Cyrus by NAME as the man who would allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem 150 years before Cyrus birth?
Which doesn't imply that religion is useful in satisfying those questions.Science is utterly worthless when asking question's "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
Religion doesn't appear to be the right tool.Atheists make the deeply flawed mistake of then arguing that since science can not address these question at all, that therefore there must be no purpose in our being here. By using the wrong tool to ask a philosophical question you come away with an inherently flawed answer just as you stated.
That is demonstrably false. In Genesis, plants predate the sun and stars. The Genesis account is literally off by billions of years.I do find it interesting and noteworthy that if one examines the ORDER in which Genesis gives account of creation it would happen exactly in the order in which one would expect it to occur scientifically. What are the odds that ancient man would know this?
I doubt that.Lastly, you will find that much of the field of study of molecular genetics is filled with both highly respected scientist who are believers but more importantly a significant absence of atheists as a percentage of the population of scientist in that particular discipline. The reason is quite simple... evolution does not conform at all in that particular field of research and study. Most researchers out rightly reject Darwinist views on evolution simply because it can not be supported at all based upon our current understanding at the molecular level.
Welcome to CF. You'll meet plenty such people right here.Of course none of this is going to change your world view as the truth is that I have never met a single person that rejects Gd on a rational, logical reasoned research of the evidence.
There is also ample literature from former Christians.There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.
Belief is a choice, many people refuse to believe in mountains of evaluated evidence.
1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
Some do, fundamental religious believed do not. This applies to many religions.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
Some do, fundamental religious believe. This applies to many religions. Some take the message as stories and believe the morals are the best way to live in a society. Something that blind faith ignores. With suicide bombers, burning people at the stake, and ignoring child abuse to keep the organisation safe.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.
What evidence is there god exists and Bronze Age Men and those who claim to have met him or Jesus, or Mary, or know what god wants. Have a clue about him? This would be like taking the evidence of people who claim to have had contact with aliens as the truth.
Define "God" in a manner that can be tested. You can define what you believe in, can you not?
Or, when they hit their thumb with the hammer for the second time. Ouch.
Where do you get this assumptions that all atheists are astrophysicists?
I do not deny it. I am skeptical of unevidenced religious assertions.
Or a case was not needed. Or, did it have to be a god?, Or, we just don't know.
Can you not define this thing that you believe in?
No, it is only evidence that supports the standard model of cosmology, and a 13+ billion-year-old cosmos.
Are you our new arbiter of "sense" for this forum?
The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. But then, the unfalsifiable is of no scientific significance.
Pretend that you are participating in a philosophy forum.
Big fat argument from ignorance.Atheists live in faith of what they have been taught. Have they experienced the Big Bang? Not hardly. Do they have an explanation for it's cause or the parameters of it? Not a clue! Do they even ask why they believe what they assume to be true. No, they just accept it. What was the force that collapsed the pre-existant universe they believe became so infinitesimally small it couldn't be measured? “No clue” is the only answer you'll hear. What was the force that over came the collapsing force and caused expansion at 17 trillion degrees? “No clue” again. Since time and space are an integral part of the universe and birthed at that moment, what “force” birthed them? “No clue.” Why did the universe develop in absolute consistency in every direction, and according to order rather than chaos? “No clue.” What caused the vibration that exists as a uniform foundation of all particles as the superheated plasma of the universe began to cool? “No clue.” What created light photons and the energy that propels them at the speed that stops time and causes mass to increase to infinite? “No clue.” Why is only 4% of the universe directly detectable, the remaining 73% being “dark matter” and 23% “dark energy”, not even detectable except for it's effect on the knowable 4%? “No clue.” Why is the “universe” of quantum mechanics impossible to understand and diametrically opposed to the laws of physics? “No clue.” What do they call the forces at work, the developer of consistency? “Anything but God.” Gen 1:1-3 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was (made to become in Hebrew) formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep (they had no word for “plasma”), and the Spirit of God was moving (“brooding”, vibrating) over the surface of the waters (liquid in Hebrew). Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.”
Until the antitheists can prove their nonsense reasoning true, which is impossible, this is the best explanation we have, and it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Thanks to all for responding. I agree with all of you who believe premise 1 is faulty and that the argument is unsound.
I thought I'd reference Wikipedia to define what is meant by "evidence".
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "
"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."
You can get more details from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
As I said earlier, I remember my mom and dad telling me that Santa was real and I believed it. Also, I might meet someone and they introduce them self as Steve and I have no reason to doubt them, so I believe it. In like manner, the Holy Spirit may speak to a Christian and reveal a truth. Or my sense of seeing tells me that I see a car...I simply believe that and have no reason to think that I may be imagining things. I have no reason to doubt what I perceive is reality. I think all of these examples could be grouped into a kind of belief known as a "properly basic belief".
I also think that we can come to believe something through sound logical argument. I'm going to assume that no one here would dispute that.
So I'd like to modify p1 from the original found in the OP and see if you think it fixes the argument.
1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).
But if you do not agree with my modified argument, please reply with how you would modify p1 and thus make the argument sound.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?