I think most of us atheists would be quite content if theists would admit that they just don't know — admit that they take it all on faith.
Then maybe, just maybe, they would not try to control the world based on supposition.
I don't know. (Ha.)What’s your thoughts on why it’s so hard to just say “I don’t know” but still choose to believe a certain way for whatever reason?
What do you mean on my side? Everyone I have quoted except for Charles Townes are not Christians. if Krauss agrees that all matter, energy, time, and space originated at the BB then I would quote him irrespective of his religious beliefs. That is my point, the majority of cosmologists believe that all matter, energy, time, and space originated at the BB and most of them are not Christians. So no I dont care what "side" they are on.No one said he's the 'only one'. Lots of scientists use this kind of language when writing at a popular level. You could have also cited Laurence Krauss, but you didn't, because I suspect you know that he is absolutely not on your side. Nor is virtually anyone who is credentialed in any relevant field of study, or has a even a layman's understanding of the subject.
Evidence for this statement? As a scientist myself, I try to be very careful about how I talk about things and most other scientists I know also try to, even on the popular level.efm: As has already been explained, all this demonstrates is that scientists aren't very careful with how they talk about these things on the popular level.
Yes, that is what it appears to be what they are saying, but they are not saying anything about what caused the BB or if something existed prior to it or if nothing existed prior to it. Remember most of these scientists are not Christian theists.efm: Now here are three things that this does not demonstrate,
1 - That any of these scientists are referring to an 'absolute beginning' of the totality of existence, and not some kind of limited 'beginning' that is actually demonstrable via Big Bang cosmology.
efm: 2 - That any of these scientists are referring to 'nothing' in the same sense that you are.
There are many primary scientific studies that strongly point in that direction. Read "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology" by Hawking and Penrose in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol 314 PP 529-548, (1970) for just one, and there are many more.efm: 3 - That any of your assertions are found in evidence in any primary scientific literature.
See above what I said about nothing.efm: Equivocate all you want, that is what you are actually tasked with demonstrating - that the Big Bang represents an 'absolute beginning' of the totality of existence from a true 'nothing'. Not the 'nothing' some scientists in relevant fields refer to (which is not actually 'nothing'), but a true state of 'nothingness' in the philosophical sense, as in an absence of anything at all.
No, See above for the first study in history that confirmed my point, but there are many other more recent ones.efm: All you've done so far is commit the same blatant fallacies of equivocation over and over again. 'Look here! This scientist used the word "beginning"! And this one said "nothing"! That means I'm right.' No it doesn't. To be 'right', you are going to have to cite some primary scientific literature in your favor.
Which you won't, because you can't. It doesn't exist. All you can do is hastily Google search, cherry pick, and equivocate, like you did right here.
But by all means, keep making an example of yourself.
The scientific evidence points to either random impersonal forces or an intelligent personal being. Do you have any evidence for a third option?No, that's a false dichotomy, we don't know the universe's origin method, we can only speculate in terms of something demonstrable, otherwise you're making claims about reality you cannot substantiate meaningfully, just claim it's the "most reasonable" which is necessarily subjective based on knowledge and perspective
So first you seem to imply that there are more than two options and then you choose the mainstream science position. If that is what you believe than you have the problem I mentioned in my post, you have no way of knowing if there is objective reality that your science is based on so therefore you have no rational basis for science.mu: No, we emerge from biological processes that don't have a mind behind them, in the same way that life emerged from non life in a complex process that we are beginning to understand.
No, it could just be a very realistic dream. Name another system that provides a rational basis for an objective reality that can be studied.mu: You're suggesting falsely that because there is no agency behind nature in a nontheistic metaphysic that we cannot be anything but solipists, which is insane, because there are plenty of epistemological systems and few require the appeal to an outside agency for them to be cogent and defensible.
What is your confidence based on? How do you know it is not just a very realistic dream?mu: The subject object correlation you're referring to seems far less complex than you're making it: I perceive things with my senses and understand that I could be mistaken in my perception, but that doesn't mean I cannot have some degree of confidence that the things I interact with, the objects I perceive, are independent of my perception, otherwise my computer, my desk, my chair, would all cease to exist when I leave the house or go to sleep, because I no longer perceive or conceive of them. I as a subject can interact with objects, there isn't a need for the relationship to be established by an external agent apart from your assertion as such with no basis prior to it. We naturally interact with things and have an understanding of them as our brains continue to develop (mirror neurons come to mind, something I'm only mildly familiar with)
mu:Object permanence in the basic notion of things persisting even when we are not interacting with them is already a decent case for the notion itself, even if it isn't absolutely conclusive: we could be in the Matrix and it's an elaborate trick in regards to simulating all these complex brain states that regard a consistent reality, but that boils down to speculation and not something that lends itself to a functional view of reality, because it's on the level of a paranoid schizophrenic believing something we have no good reason or evidence to believe is true apart form their delusions.
mu: Seems to me you're dangerously close to a transcendental argument for God's existence that presuppositionalists like Darth Dawkins, Matt Slick and the like use to suggest that without God we cannot be confident or even provisionally certain that reality is the way it is independent of our perception, which needlessly muddies the waters in a discussion where the major disagreement is qualitative, particular conclusions about the model of reality versus the agreement we tend to have that reality works consistently.
Again read the OP, I am not making an argument for Christianity. But Why is demonstrating that a belief fits better with reality than other beliefs a poor argument? And why is it not rational? Scientists do this everyday with their theories. The check to see if their theories model reality the best.It certainly did. Saying that you should believe in Christianity because - according to you - it is superior to this or that religion is a very poor argument indeed.
(btw, I only read the op so far)....Specifically I need to include an argument as to why Christianity may be false.
If there is a true religion, then it should clearly stand out as being different from the others, as its teachings will be true, not heavily distorted or downright wrong like other religions. I don't see any religion which stands out as being diifferent from others, and hence that for me is evidence that all religions are man-made, and none is true. Hence, I take that as evidence that Christianity is true.
My purpose in this thread is for Christians to have the opportunity to argue that Christianity is clearly different from other religions in a way that shows true divine guidance.
But the OP is asking you if you can make an argument for Christianity. It's saying, how is Christianity observably different from other religions. You're answering this, it's true, but these differences are nothing more than your opinion. Finding ways in which your religion might be a metaphor for the universe mean nothing, I'm afraid. As I said earlier - about as useful as finding Jesus' face in a potato chip.Again read the OP, I am not making an argument for Christianity. But Why is demonstrating that a belief fits better with reality than other beliefs a poor argument? And why is it not rational? Scientists do this everyday with their theories. The check to see if their theories model reality the best.
But the OP is asking you if you can make an argument for Christianity. It's saying, how is Christianity observably different from other religions. You're answering this, it's true, but these differences are nothing more than your opinion. Finding ways in which your religion might be a metaphor for the universe mean nothing, I'm afraid. As I said earlier - about as useful as finding Jesus' face in a potato chip.
The OP hasn't been on in 3 weeks so if you are taking over the thread for him by rebutting arguments then perhaps you could do so for post #68 .But the OP is asking you if you can make an argument for Christianity. It's saying, how is Christianity observably different from other religions. You're answering this, it's true, but these differences are nothing more than your opinion. Finding ways in which your religion might be a metaphor for the universe mean nothing, I'm afraid. As I said earlier - about as useful as finding Jesus' face in a potato chip.
So then, God's Word is TRUE !Exodus 15:26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”
I'm sure they are. But your opinion that these differences make your religion right and other religions wrong is nothing more than your opinion. Let's see something we haven't yet seen: something that sets Christianity apart from other religions that could not have simply been made up by humans. Because so far, everything I've seen about Christianity, including in this thread, is entirely consistent with God being the product of human imagination, and nothing more.Evidence that the differences are just my opinion? I have talked to and read about the teachings of other religions especially the ones I mentioned and they are the mainstream beliefs of those religions.
You spoke of how characteristics of God told us about the nature of the universe, and I pointed out that this is nothing more than applying metaphorical language in the Bible to reality, without any basis.Where did I say that my religion might be a metaphor for the universe?
Sure thing!The OP hasn't been on in 3 weeks so if you are taking over the thread for him by rebutting arguments then perhaps you could do so for post #68 .
Sure thing!
I read that article you posted. Very interesting. God wanted the Israelites to be a model people, and so He gave them rules to keep them healthy? Is that what you're saying?
Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me.
Okay. Thank you for making that clear, I just wanted to understand you.I'm saying that the Pentateuch gave the Israelites (and Christians by extension), the practical applications of both germ and dietary theories 3500 years ago. Long before the sciences behind either had any inkling of them.
It is also good as a response to your own requirement in the
The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists where you state one of the proofs that would be convincing to you as being:
"Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me."
Only the Christian bible teaches that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing detectable 2000 years before it was confirmed by science with the BB theory. Only the Christian Bible teaches that the universe is expanding 3000 years before it was confirmed by science with the BB theory. Only the Christian Bible teaches that the universe is winding down energetically 2000 years before it was confirmed by science. In addition, no human moral system restricts sexual behavior as much as Christianity, therefore it is unlikely it was invented by humans. Man made sexual morality would let you have sex with whoever you want as long as it is consensual and doesn't hurt anyone. And I can give many more examples.I'm sure they are. But your opinion that these differences make your religion right and other religions wrong is nothing more than your opinion. Let's see something we haven't yet seen: something that sets Christianity apart from other religions that could not have simply been made up by humans. Because so far, everything I've seen about Christianity, including in this thread, is entirely consistent with God being the product of human imagination, and nothing more.
No, the nature of God was discovered and agreed upon by the church 1700 years before science discovered this characteristic of the universe so it could not have been retrofitted by humans. Art experts know that artists and creators always incorporate aspects of themselves in their creation, that is how they can determine between counterfeit reproductions and frauds from the real thing. So this is plainly a justified comparison to determine who the creator of the universe is.ia: You spoke of how characteristics of God told us about the nature of the universe, and I pointed out that this is nothing more than applying metaphorical language in the Bible to reality, without any basis.
For example, when you said:
"But the very nature of the Triune Christian God, a diversity within a unity, matches the fundamental characteristic of the universe so most likely that is His fingerprint on it to reveal Himself as its creator."
"Most likely"? Nonsense. All you've done is draw an unjustified comparison between a facet of a religious story and a scientific fact.
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?