Questions About the Source of Your Faith

[Adstar]

[FONT=&quot]

That is exactly my point, but not an answer to the question:

Why is god unquestionable? Why are you not allowed to assemble a case that he does not exist?

But people do exactly that every day, Have you not read the posts in here by anti-christs?

People Can and do try their best to construct a case that God does not exist. I cannot see why you are asking why it is not allowed? When it clearly is.

Of course one could try to construct an argument that water was not wet but the reality of the situation always overcomes the best arguments put forward.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days[/FONT]

 

[Adstar]

No, it doesn't make my question irrelevant, fallacious or eroneous. You are claiming truth by association. This is a classical logical fallacy. Did Columbus sail off the edge of the Earth because people had considered the shape of it for centuries and decided it was flat? Is slavery ethically sound because for centuries people did not question it? Is Islam the true religion because so many have subscribed to it for so long? No, so my question is, why is Christianity any different.

[FONT=&quot]Your reply to my answer seems to have nothing to do with my answer. If you look at my observation you will see it is correct.

People have read and considered the message of the Bible for centuries and they have made their decision to either accept the Message as truth or reject it as false.

I really cannot see how you can disagree with this observation. I can only assume that you did not read my answer properly??

Please clear this up for me.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days[/FONT]

 

[MikeMcK]

While this statement is very likely true, I find it quite snarky. However, I will answer under the assumption that it is genuine, in the interest of good discourse.

It was a joke. Lighten up.

I meant to communicate that I was born to parents who imposed a belief in Christianity

Not to split hairs, but that's quite a bit different than being "born a Christian".

Saying that you were born a Christian because your parents were Christians is like saying that you were born a plumber because your father was a plumber.

Of course intelligent design attempts to place god in the domain of science, but that is a different discussion. The fact remains that the world is full of theists who dismiss critical analysis as an appropriate tool for questioning the existence of god. The word "faith" clearly denotes a belief that is not based on any physical evidence at all.

Then they would be wrong. While conversion, itself, is a matter of the heart, God challenges us all throughout the Bible to seek for Him using the reason and intellect that He gave us.

Thank you for that answer. It begs the question. Have you studied other religions with the same vigor? Have you considered atheism with the same vigor? If not, how, equipped with limited knowledge, can you know that Christianity is correct?

Yes, I have studied and have been exposed to many other religions.

An excuse for what? I'll be presumptuous and assume and excuse for not being Christian. If that is your meaning, do Muslims born in Pakistan get a free pass?

No. They do not get a free pass.

According to Paul's letter to the Romans, they have an opportunity to be saved, despite not having heard the Gospel or given an adequate opportunity to respond to it, but that is only an opportunity to be saved, not a "free pass".

By the way, if you are a marine, thanks for your service. I'm a soldier.

Thank you.

 

[musicman30mm]

If you understood the nature of logical thought and axioms correctly, you would know that what you say, is comprehensively impossible. All logical thought relies on axioms, on something that we believe is true, yet we cannot prove it.

This is the misunderstanding. All logical thought relies on self-evidencies, something that does not require proof. (Please do not claim that god is self evident.)

For example an indisputable syllogism would go as follows:

1) 1+1=2

2) The product of any number multiplied by two is even.

3) The prodct of any number multiplied by (1+1) is an even number.

In this way, we can come to a truthfull conclusion without any leap of faith, no uncertainty; however, the logical syllogism is more a tool of sound philosophy than science.

Science is an investigative method. It never claims that something is universally true. It claims that something is probable, sometimes that a particular hypothesis has been challenged extensively and never failed to be true, but it always allows for revision when proven incomplete or alltogether untrue.

In this sense the christian belief in god is philosophical, not scientific as you claim, for surely you must concede that when his existence is tested by the scientific method, we find no reason to believe he exists. The syllogism I observe in christian philosophy is this:

1) The Bible says god exists

2) The god wrote the Bible

3) Everything god writes is true.

4) God exists.

It is clearly circular reasoning, and must be tossed out. I have seen other philosophical proofs, all of which are clearly erroneous. In the end you must rely on a leap of faith, that is a belief without rational reason- a guess, to conclude that god exists. This gap in logic, as well as the mountains of clear evidence agaist him being comiled by science, at the very least, concludes that the probablility of god's existence is extremely remote.

If one is working in worldview ('rationalism') that one can work out everything by so called 'objective reasoning' and values facts as the ultimate sort of knowledge, etc, etc, then you wouldn't.

I'm not certin that everything can be worked out by objective reasoning. I am quite certain that the only way of working anything out to any degree of certainty is through objective reasoning.

...it would be ridiculous to assert that Christians run around ignoring facts and reports from numerous fields in the world, because we wish to hold on to God.

They don't?

Galileo Galilei, the guy who pushed the idea of a heliocentric universe and was forced under threat of execution by the church to recant, then placed under house arrest for the rest of his life comes to mind. He was not pardoned by the church until 1979! That is what I call "ignoring facts".

A relevent caveat to Galileo that addresses your claims that the Bible is perfect:

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicals 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclastices 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."
(From Wikipedia's article on Galileo: Church Controversy)

What about the multitude who deny Darwin's natural selection, those fundimentalists who reject medicin or snake handlers?

What about the vague inconsistencies throughout theology, including the bible, reguarding the Trinity, the virgin Mary and polytheism? I am not suggesting that you specifically fall into these categories, but by-in-large you religion does. The Bible confounds these issues through glairing inconsistencies, that can only be rationalized in the same way a stoned hippie in the Nevada desert rationalizes that a weather baloon is actually an extra-terrestrial space craft.

Why is there only one widely accepted origins model, and why is it accepted despite it's flaws.

First, it is not excepted to be absolute truth, just that it is pointed in the right direction. It is widly so, because it's predictions are so incredibly accurate, and it is based on the observable behaviors of real things. I am not a subject-matter on cosmology, so I can not comment as such on the dark matter issue directly. I will say that it is very possible that some scientists have become too married to certain Einsteinien principles and are guilty of fitting the world to their thoeries reather than vice-versa. However, they are marking remarkable inroads to cosmic understanding that make very difficult the existence of god, if not refute it all together. Most importantly, science does not claim to have the answer yet. It is brave enough to say, "Good question, I don't know. Let's try to find out." Had science already achieved "the answer" it would be very difficult to find employ as a scientist.

When you say the cosmilogical constants are fluid, you ignore huge volumes of very sound data, testing, observation etc... Same as when you say the universe is much younger than 14 billion years. (I'm not sure how young you think it, but I would venture to guess in the ballpark of 10,000 years. Correct me if I am putting words in your mouth.) I believe the reason you select these pieces of science to ignore and not others, is because they make it very difficult for you to go on believing in god.

Of course, how would you have a Christian talk of God if not by using the very guidebook that God left us.

This is a fine example of that circular reasoning I referred to.

Consider Lord of the Rings trilogy of films.

I'll go you one better and consider the book, which does not proport to be truth, is a horrible analogy to the Bible. As is the film. I see the point you're getting at, but it is based on the assumption that the Bible is without error, which, as I have made example of and any reasonable person with an education can see, it is not.

I hope you have read this far, becase here is where I make nice. In terms of a point for point analysis, I find your argument quite lacking, however I understand that it must be stood back from to be completely taken in. This is where we are on uneven ground. In your opinion, the bedrock of theism is based on the intangeable, and atheism is slavish to the very tennents of academic debate. Because of this, you can never show me your concept of god in the context of an arguement.

 

[ebia]

All logical thought relies on self-evidencies, something that does not require proof.

The trouble is nothing is really self-evidently true, which is why mathematians stick with the word 'axiom' and divorce it from it's root meaning, acknowledging that they are really just good assumptions.

 

[musicman30mm]

The trouble is nothing is really self-evidently true, which is why mathematians stick with the word 'axiom' and divorce it from it's root meaning, acknowledging that they are really just good assumptions.

This is the murky area of philosophy, also the reason science is nessesairy, but for all usages known some things can be considered self-evident. A married husband. 1+1=2. These things can be worked out by internal though alone, a priori. One need not see the ring finger of every husband that ever lived to know they were all married. One must not examine every possible pairing of single objects to know that they will always amount to two. In some instances, such as the husband, the self-evidency is symantic. In others, such as 1+1=2, it is more. Either way, this line of questioning holds little bearing on the meaning of my original point, and is only a result of Digit's calling into question my understanding of logic.

 

[Digit]

Hi musicman30mm,

This is the misunderstanding. All logical thought relies on self-evidencies, something that does not require proof. (Please do not claim that god is self evident.)

1) The Bible says god exists

2) The god wrote the Bible

3) Everything god writes is true.

4) God exists.

That's why you think Christians believe God is real?

My friend, we are not idiots, and that is a ridiculous suggestion to level at intelligent people.

Axioms are considered to be self-evident, but they are not self-evident. There is a very large difference and I think that is where you are confused.

They don't?

No they do not.

Galileo Galilei, the guy who pushed the idea of a heliocentric universe and was forced under threat of execution by the church to recant, then placed under house arrest for the rest of his life comes to mind. He was not pardoned by the church until 1979! That is what I call "ignoring facts".

Christians are not perfect, and for the most part we do our best, but as in anything to do with mankind, mistakes and bad decisions are made. Consider this though, we are under strict orders from God, to

1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Test everything. Hold on to the good."

The Bible shows many instances where God reasons with man, uses logic and confers on our level to prove His omnipotence.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicals 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclastices 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."
(From Wikipedia's article on Galileo: Church Controversy)

It always amazes me how enthusiastic you Atheists are to latch onto bad translations of the Bible. Anyhow, the word moved in that passage is actually translated from the Hebrew word mote, which means to waver, slip or fall. Source.

What about the multitude who deny Darwin's natural selection, those fundimentalists who reject medicin or snake handlers?

I don't think anyone has issues with natural selection, as it's evident in our world, as to people who reject medicine, some people rely on the healing of prayer, and there are numerous documented cases of prayer having positive effects on people and curing them when medicine, gave them a terminal timeline. As to snake handlers, I'm not sure what you mean.

What about the vague inconsistencies throughout theology, including the bible, reguarding the Trinity, the virgin Mary and polytheism?

You need to be specific, or I can't help I'm afraid. Think of it from my side, I am someone who knows the Bible to be flawless and complete. Our translations may have issues, but then I read them for the depth and power of God's word as a believer, not with a critical eye of scrutiny.

I am not suggesting that you specifically fall into these categories, but by-in-large you religion does.

I think you do what many atheists do, which is you look for the obscure and offbeat sides of Christianity and attempt to debunk a religion based on it's adherents. Richard Dawkins does the same thing, and oddly, like you, doesn't provide sources. Ultimately, if you focus on God's word instead of what God's people are doing, you will learn and uncover far more in my opinion. Christians are not perfect, we are as perfect as any other person.

The Bible confounds these issues through glairing inconsistencies, that can only be rationalized in the same way a stoned hippie in the Nevada desert rationalizes that a weather baloon is actually an extra-terrestrial space craft.

Really? You mean by researching the original texts, finding the original words and studying their meaning? Hippies in deserts do that? It doesn't seem too much to ask to me, for people who study the Bible to do so in depth, and to understand what they are getting into when they pick up various translations of the book. In fact it's odd, that considering there is an entire organisation of people who are committed to Bible translations, and they make so many mistakes, that the original texts are without error, seems like a tall order for imprefect man to fullfil?

First, it is not excepted to be absolute truth, just that it is pointed in the right direction. It is widly so, because it's predictions are so incredibly accurate, and it is based on the observable behaviors of real things.

Everytime you say something like this, you need to add in qualifiers about the persuppositions that you base this worldview on. (some) Christians don't disregard the theory, only the presuppositions and then by nature the theory. I don't see why I should accept that the radioactive decay rate has remained constant in the past, especially when in labratory scenarios we have been able to cause variances in it, I don't see why radiometric dating methods don't concur or why scientists get to make up expected dates for fossils when they have a dating method that is meant to be so reliable. If I measure blood, I can use any number of ways, yet they all yield the same accurate results, whereas dating methods vary from anything between 30 million years and 300 million years. In fact, lets move aside from Creationist claims, and read some done by evolutionists.

I am not a subject-matter on cosmology, so I can not comment as such on the dark matter issue directly. I will say that it is very possible that some scientists have become too married to certain Einsteinien principles and are guilty of fitting the world to their thoeries reather than vice-versa. However, they are marking remarkable inroads to cosmic understanding that make very difficult the existence of god

If you believe certain presuppositions, yes.

if not refute it all together. Most importantly, science does not claim to have the answer yet. It is brave enough to say, "Good question, I don't know. Let's try to find out." Had science already achieved "the answer" it would be very difficult to find employ as a scientist.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." and I am as much entranced by science as you, but I start from a different idea and reach wholly different conclusions. At the end of the day, it would be silly for God to create man with the capacity for scientific method, which proved His non existance no?

When you say the cosmilogical constants are fluid, you ignore huge volumes of very sound data, testing, observation etc... Same as when you say the universe is much younger than 4.5 billion years. (I'm not sure how young you think it, but I would venture to guess in the ballpark of 10,000 years. Correct me if I am putting words in your mouth.) I believe the reason you select these pieces of science to ignore and not others, is because they make it very difficult for you to go on believing in god.

Not overly, I think it's absolutely unimportant how I view the universe to have come about - so long as I acknowledge Christ as my saviour. Ebia I believe (correct me if I'm wrong Ebia), wholly accepts evolution. He obviously has little issue with many of the things you feel Christians ignore, ultimately it's interesting, just not crucial in our faith.

This is a fine example of that circular reasoning I referred to.

It isn't circular reasoning. I'm saying God exists because the Bible says so. I'm saying that God is *refers to Bible* all these things *lists them*. How else would I know God? How do you know about your car, if not from the user's manual? You cannot separate a Christian from his encyclopedia on God.

I'll go you one better and consider the book, which does not proport to be truth, is a horrible analogy to the Bible. As is the film. I see the point you're getting at, but it is based on the assumption that the Bible is without error, which, as I have made example of and any reasonable person with an education can see, it is not.

I hope you have read this far, becase here is where I make nice. In terms of a point for point analysis, I find your argument quite lacking, however I understand that it must be stood back from to be completely taken in. This is where we are on uneven ground. In your opinion, the bedrock of theism is based on the intangeable, and atheism is slavish to the very tennents of academic debate. Because of this, you can never show me your concept of god in the context of an arguement.

If you dispute this, I will make you the same offer I've made many others on this forum, in that I will happily work through any inconsistencies you have with the Bible. But first, I would ask you refer here as this likely covers most of them.

The problem you have, are by no means new, but I feel they are important, because as long as you believe them, you will propogate the myth of a flawed Bible and ignorant Christians.

All the best,
In Christ.
Digit

 

[Stinker]

"You seem to base your beliefs on a presupposition that God exists."

I think C.S. Lewis answers this very well:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this
idea of 'just' and 'unjust' ? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight
line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it 'unjust' ? If the whole show was bad
from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent
reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into the water, because man is not a water animal:
a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of 'justice' by saying it was nothing
but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the
argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to
please my private fancies."
"Thus in the very act in trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless, I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality- namely that my idea of 'justice' - was
full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning:
we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 'Dark' would be without meaning."
[The Rival Conceptions of God]

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

 

[musicman30mm]

You raise some interesting points, and the web site you linked to seems pretty extensive. I'll have to give it some attention before responding, and I'm short on time.

However I believe this demands to be said immediatly:

It isn't circular reasoning. I'm saying God exists because the Bible says so.

Unless you forgot to type the word 'not' between 'saying' and 'god', this is just a completely obtuse statement to make, and you are, almost verbatim, employing the false syllogism I ascribed to Christian philosophy at the outset of my last retort.

 

[Digit]

You raise some interesting points, and the web site you linked to seems pretty extensive. I'll have to give it some attention before responding, and I'm short on time.

However I believe this demands to be said immediatly:



Unless you forgot to type the word 'not' between 'saying' and 'god', this is just a completely obtuse statement to make, and you are, almost verbatim, employing the false syllogism I ascribed to Christian philosophy at the outset of my last retort.

Hi musicman30mm,

Whoops, yes I did. My bad. I meant to say that I am not saying God exists because the Bible says so.

Thanks for pointing that out and giving me a chance to correct it!

Cheers,
Digit

 

[ebia]

This is the murky area of philosophy, also the reason science is nessesairy, but for all usages known some things can be considered self-evident. A married husband. 1+1=2. These things can be worked out by internal though alone, a priori. One need not see the ring finger of every husband that ever lived to know they were all married. One must not examine every possible pairing of single objects to know that they will always amount to two. In some instances, such as the husband, the self-evidency is symantic. In others, such as 1+1=2, it is more.

Strictly speaking neither of those is an axiom/self-evident truth. They are (abreviated forms of) definitions. eg. 1+1=2 is a definition of 'two'.

Either way, this line of questioning holds little bearing on the meaning of my original point, and is only a result of Digit's calling into question my understanding of logic.

Perfectly true.

 

[musicman30mm]

I don't think anyone has issues with natural selection, as it's evident in our world, as to people who reject medicine, some people rely on the healing of prayer, and there are numerous documented cases of prayer having positive effects on people and curing them when medicine, gave them a terminal timeline.

There have in-fact been many studies intercessory prayer and healing, but by no means do they conclude or "document" that prayer helps. Often people who know they are being prayed for show improvements, because of the placebo effect. In double blind studies, there has not been a consistancy of results showing that prayer works. As a matter of fact the most extensive and recent prayer experiment showed that more of the recipients of prayer died of complications!

Check these articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

Now the whole idea of a prayer study seems a bit rediculose in the first place. Why would god answer only prayers for those in the study group? Would not most or all of the members of the controll group also be prayed for by loved ones? Is god hard of hearing, so he more readily notices a prayer that is being made by many, than few?

I don't see why I should accept that the radioactive decay rate has remained constant in the past, especially when in labratory scenarios we have been able to cause variances in it, I don't see why radiometric dating methods don't concur or why scientists get to make up expected dates for fossils when they have a dating method that is meant to be so reliable. If I measure blood, I can use any number of ways, yet they all yield the same accurate results, whereas dating methods vary from anything between 30 million years and 300 million years. In fact, lets move aside from Creationist claims, and read some done by evolutionists.

I'm not sure if you are trying to make a point about science in general here, or if you are making a stand against Darwinian theories. The article you linked to uses the Cambrian Explosion as one of it's main premises, acknowledging that it happened in a span of 10,000,000 years. Surely god must have wispered that number, 10,000,000, in the author's ear, because as you claim, the radiometric time scale is in serious question.

I think you are applying the precieved problems with radiocarbon dating to all forms of radiometric dating. There are problems, but those timescales are calibrated in very engenious ways.

Weather or not you find problems with dating methods sufficient to dismiss Darwins theories, which I should add were written down before and make no mention of radiometric dating, is an entirely seperate issue from the age of the universe.

There is a visible galaxy that is 14 billion light years from Earth. This fact jives quite nicely with the Hubble constant's prediction that the Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1871043.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

I think you do what many atheists do, which is you look for the obscure and offbeat sides of Christianity and attempt to debunk a religion based on it's adherents.

Ahh the straw man offensive. I think you are wrong, the majority of religiouse people fall under the demographics I am painting, and every single one of them shares a very powerful common delusion.

As for siting sources, I have tried in this post to accomodate you, and you will notice that I have cited reputable sources. It seems all of your information comes from one rather infamous one, either directly or through channels of online preachers.

If you dispute this, I will make you the same offer I've made many others on this forum, in that I will happily work through any inconsistencies you have with the Bible. But first, I would ask you refer here as this likely covers most of them.

I do dispute this claim that the Bible is flawless, but do not wish hear your reasons. I'll assume they are not more extensive than those in the link you sent me, and tell you that after reading through much of it, I find it lacking.

How do you know about your car, if not from the user's manual?

I hopped in and took it for a drive, then grabbed a wrench, popped the hood and began exploring, searching for my own conclusions. One could actually say that the mechanic who never read the manual would wind up with a much deeper understanding of his car than the mechanic who simply follows the written instructions. Thank you for that analogy, I like it very much.

At the end of the day, it would be silly for God to create man with the capacity for scientific method, which proved His non existance no?

This is circular reasoning again: Science can not prove that god doesn't exist because god wouldn't create it that way.

I get the feeling you were trying to lend a tone of jest when you wrote it, but I also get the feeling that deep down you believe this kind of logic is somehow productive, which is dissapointing but not surprising.

 

[Digit]

Hi musicman30mm,

There have in-fact been many studies intercessory prayer and healing, but by no means do they conclude or "document" that prayer helps.

They show the groups that prayed had much better results than those who didn't. If the only difference between the groups is that of prayer, then I would say it shows that prayer helps.

There is a visible galaxy that is 14 billion light years from Earth. This fact jives quite nicely with the Hubble constant's prediction that the Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1871043.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
That's exactly the sort of presuppoistions I am talking about. For that to illustrate the the galaxy is that old, you need assume that there was no light to start with, and that it took that many billions of light years to reach us. The Bible says otherwise, it says that God created the light before the sun or the heavens or anything. There was light present before there were any source for it. Now, even if you don't agree with that, can you understand at least why what I was saying earlier is true, in that our presuppositions differ, and as such we reach different results. The further down the line you go, the more wildly conflicting the results are? Yes? No? Maybe?

Ahh the straw man offensive. I think you are wrong, the majority of religiouse people fall under the demographics I am painting, and every single one of them shares a very powerful common delusion.

As for siting sources, I have tried in this post to accomodate you, and you will notice that I have cited reputable sources. It seems all of your information comes from one rather infamous one, either directly or through channels of online preachers.

What makes your source more reputable than mine?

I do dispute this claim that the Bible is flawless, but do not wish hear your reasons. I'll assume they are not more extensive than those in the link you sent me, and tell you that after reading through much of it, I find it lacking.

Lacking how, specifically, I want to know specifics here.

This is circular reasoning again: Science can not prove that god doesn't exist because god wouldn't create it that way.

That wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that there seems to be this big rift where people think religion and science are mutually exclusive, would that not seem silly to you? That we are in God's creation (us Christians) yet not supposed to use our tools to find and learn more about it. Why does the Bible then tell us to test everything, to reason to use logic if from what you are saying, it will ultimately show God is highly unlikely to exist?

I get the feeling you were trying to lend a tone of jest when you wrote it, but I also get the feeling that deep down you believe this kind of logic is somehow productive, which is dissapointing but not surprising.

None of these things do I say with jest, and nor do I feel they are unproductive. Whilst none of them will prove absolutely the existance of a deity, I do hope they will illustrate that we are not stupid, we do think, we use logic, science and reason to draw the conclusion that it's actually quite likely God exists.

Recall scripture, that says this generation of man will seek a miraculous sign, but none will be given as we are a sinful and adulterous generation. We won't get conclusive evidence, so we must form a likley picture. I don't believe that people would die for belief in something that is absolutely nothing short of absolute for them, and that can be achieved without absolute proof.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[musicman30mm]

I thank you for this discussion, and wish to continue it. I can tell you have put careful thought into your beliefs, and that demands respect. Of-course I believe that you have drawn the wrong conclusions, as you must believe I have. I'm going to make one more rebuttle here, and give you the opportunity to have the last word after that. Then, I would like to shift gears to something more specific, which I will propose at the end of this post. I fear we will get no where on the present course; however, we have done some work towards distilling the specifics on exactly where our lines of reasoning part ways.

I hope you have not already classed me as an arrogant atheist. I understand, perhaps in-part agree with, that accusation as it is often made against atheists. If I have been rude, it was meant in good humor, not disrespect.

They show the groups that prayed had much better results than those who didn't. If the only difference between the groups is that of prayer, then I would say it shows that prayer helps.

I know there are some studies that claim prayer results in healing, but there are some that claim it has no effect and others that claim it is actually harmful. You cannot choose to ignore those results that dispute your hypothesis. This is called the Sharpshooter Fallacy. Imagine a person that fires several shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the hits and claims to be a sharpshooter. You're consideration of the prayer studies is one example. Also, those studies that support the prayer healing hypothesis are rife with it. I'm not saying that prayer definately does not heal. I'm saying there's no evidence to support the claim. Certainly there is some evidence to say that if a person knows they are being prayed for they are more likely to be healed, but this is a vague correlation between god and healing, muddled by the placebo effect and other psychological issues. In no way can it be considered a viable piece of evidence that god exists.

I'm surprised that you came back with the unqualified and sweeping statement that prayer causes healing after scolding me for not quoting sources, specially when the sources I did quote make quick work of such a claim. I had expected you to attack the sources, which is why I tryed to preclude you by noting that they were reputeable.

Which brings me to your main source of information, the Bible, and a big part of my reason for rejecting your arguement. They all rely on the bible being the word of god, that is the presupposition that makes it so easy for me to dismiss the god hypothesis, specifically a personal god like the Yahwe (spelling?). If the bible isn't a 100% perfect, truthful, divinely inspired document, your line of reasoning is completely debunked. This leads you to the task of proving that it is the word of god, which you cannot. Further, you cannot even make a good case for it, at least not scientifically or logically or rationally or whatever you prefer to lable my, atheist brand of world-view. In order to accept the christian version of things one must simply assume that the bible is god without empirical evidence. I can not do that.

The presuppositions I make don't require such leaps of faith. When considering the age of the universe for example, I take into account that light travels at around a billion feet per second and that it requires a source. If I were to look up and see a galaxy, I could rightly assume that the light hitting my eye was at some time in the past emitted by the galaxy. If I knew something about the red shift theory, I could calculate the distance of the galaxy. The speed of light, and the distance it traveled would inevitably lead me to a conclusion of the time it took that light to reach me, and therefore how long ago it was emitted. A basic uderstanding of matter/energy conservation would force me to reject the idea that the light was there before the galaxy. All of the information required for me to arrive at the conclusion that that galaxy was emitting light at least 14 billion years ago can be tested. I can do the math. Others can do the math. We can come to a consensus, at least, that no one has ever observed an instance of light traveling at a different speed, thermodynamics being busted, or red shift theory leading someone astray. There are no leaps of faith. You would be absolutely correct in saying that just because it has never been proven doesn't mean it can't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it is very unlikely to happen. In-fact those calculations being proven completely inaccurate (specially by as much as you claim them to be) is so unlikely it forces me to liken your dismissal of these well trod scientific paths to one going out and signing a mortage on a ten-million dollar mansion, counting on the fact that they will win the lottory before the first payment is due.

Lacking how, specifically, I want to know specifics here.

This diserves a good answer, and if you like, I will work on one. However, that web site is extensive and I will not presume to be able to single handedly debung it off the top of my head. For now, I will say that what I have read of it so far smacks of the same logical inconsistancies I have been accusing you of throughout this thread.

Here is my proposal of a new direction for this discussion:

In the spirit of intellectual honesty one must be willing to make provisions for a situation in which they would abandon their beliefs, that is if one wishes to claim thay are actually seeking truth, which I'm certain we both believe we are.

On what grounds would you be forced to become an agnostic or atheist? On what grounds would you be forced to adopt a different religion?

On what grounds would I believe in a god of any kind?

Of course a booming voice from the sky followed by a clear example of a miracle would do it, but that is trite. If an instance of irriducable complexity were observed, and proven to an extent that was at least as logically acceptable as Darwinian Theories, it would blow evolutio out of the water, and make it very difficult for me not to make a serious reconsideration of at a deistic god, but not a personal one. I will put more thought into my question to see if I can flesh it out in the near future for you.

Before we diverge from the present line of discussion, please consider my premises and refute any you feel I have not at least attempted to give you an answer on.

P.S. Dawkins' use of citations in his books is downright prolific. I'm not sure where you got the idea that he goes about making wild undocumented claims. Have you read any of his books cover to cover?

 

[stumpjumper]

Interesting discussion.

If you ever feel like jumping into a different debate or discussion musicman30mm, let me know.

I don't want to jump in here and derail the discussion

On what grounds would you be forced to become an agnostic or atheist? On what grounds would you be forced to adopt a different religion?

I would say that I would adopt a different metaphysics if I felt that different metaphysics or religion was true. I can't give an example because if I did know of a valid example I would have to follow it and then I wouldn't be a Christian now...

 

[musicman30mm]

Stumpjumper, I welcome you to join me and Digit. I have been trying to address everyone's comments, but as you can imagine, an atheist in a christian forum winds up with alot of 'splanin' to do.

I would say that I would adopt a different metaphysics if I felt that different metaphysics or religion was true. I can't give an example because if I did know of a valid example I would have to follow it and then I wouldn't be a Christian now...

"Adopt a different metaphysics" and "felt that a different metaphysics or religion was true" are just different ways of saying the same thing. The question is what hypothetical evidence would cause that state? It's a difficult question, exceptionally so for someone who relies on faith to back their beliefs, but a very important one to answer. I think if you cannot come up with an answer, you aren't seeking one. I'll give you an example that, although just as trite as the booming voice from the sky scenerio, should illucidate the spirit of my question.

If you rode a time machine back through the ages, observing the origin of the universe, that turned out to be 14,000,000 years ago, in a big bang, which upon observing you noted was caused by a quantum singularity as science postulates, would you give up on christianity? What if you endevored to understand cosmology as cosmologists do, through complex mathematical proofs, and once you achieved a highly developed concept of it, found that it was very possible for the universe to exist as is without god? Notice that I didn't say you disproved god, just that it was possible for him not to exist. Would you still claim a defacto belief in Christianity?

 

[stumpjumper]

Well. I'm a theistic evolutionist so I don't think my views really fit into the way the discussion has presently evolved so I don't want to just jump in.

I would say that I define faith as, more or less, fundamental trust in the overall nature of reality that confronts us in a turn from nihilism to meaning with a stance of embracing reality as a benevolent whole. I look at this faith as confidence in the living God we encounter in our lives and express in symbolic and, many times, culturally conditioned terms.

Would I be a Christian if born in Saudi Arabia? Probably not but I do think I could still encounter and experience God even if not in an ideal manner...

 

[musicman30mm]

Fair enough, although it is unreasonable to say that christianity is the "ideal" way to experience god without saying why.

If you want to use blind faith to justify belief in god, that's fine, but it is totally unreasonable for God to demand blind faith from me. Specially if he is to design me as a skeptic. If he exists, God has not left behind a shred of empirical evidence, yet he designed me with a brain that needs emperical evidence as a prerequsite for belief. I cannot win.

It is like putting a man in a room full of doors and saying, "One of these leads to freedom, the rest, certain death. Choose." The man finds books, at least one advocating each door, but none of the books give hard evidence of their correctness. They say unhelpfull things like, "Door number ninty-six is correct because this book says so, and this book is correct." They also say things like, "The sky is up, the ground down," which are true, but do not clarify the problem of the doors. One way or the other, our hapless man will have to choose a door to escape, but the way to finding the right one is through examination of the room and the doors, not the books.

It seems cruel of god to stack the odds so decidedly against me. Which leads me to believe, if there was a god (which I very highly doubt) he would not be perfect and certainly not benevolant towad all of his creatures.

 

[stumpjumper]

Gotta run after this post.

I wouldn't say I have blind faith nor that faith should ever be blind. You could say that faith requires an existential leap but then, upon taking that leap, and realizing what the world looks like from a different perspective, one is sighted and not blind anymore.

Or, to say it differently, looking at the world from a different perspective and with different experiences provides support for the leap that was taken previously and proves that one's faith is certainly not empty nor blind. Experiencing God and reality from a different perspective provides that support.

I don't see how the odds are stacked against you or others. I see God reaching out to us in ways that are meaningful and relevant to each of us given our appropriate contexts.

For some, the ideal way to experience God may be through a different religion than Christianity. That does not mean that, overall, Christianity is not the ideal way to experience God all things being equal, which they are not.

 

[Digit]

Hi musicman30mm,

I think in the interests of reaching the lowest common denominator, in our differences we should find out if we agree on the basics, before we can disagree on the specifics, right?

For instance, the entire point about axioms, and our beliefs being based on them. We appear to disagree in how axioms play a role in our worldviews, which is, essentially, what we are discussing. Allow me to explain my axioms and also my beliefs as succinctly as possible:

I think first and foremost I believe that reality is not always as is presented. Whilst yesterday something was impossible, today it may well be possible, so in my beliefs about this reality I try not to rule out anything that seems impossible on the surface. This affects my worldview because on the surface, the Bible is quite unbelievable, and it makes many claims which in our present age, are impossible. Based on my acceptance of reality however, I understand that what I am experiencing may not be an accurate representation of the whole of reality and as such, those impossible things, may well be, possible.

Secondly, I believe that there is a Creator, a being called God to us, who designed with intent, my reality as a temporary home for me, to learn and act and choose whether to follow Him or not. One may wonder why this is not first on my list, but then the Bible itself says to question everything, including the existence of our God. As such, it must come second in my list of things that I understand
and accept to be true, without the ability to neccessarily prove they are true.

Now really, that, is it. Of course there are more things I accept, but the main ones are those two.

But we both need to understand that as we travel down the line of all the logical proofs and so forth, we will meet branches - one such brance as it appeared earlier is that you believe light originated from the stars in our universe, and if we can detect stars that are billions of light years away, then that alone is evidence of the age of our universe. I think that is a perfectly understandable belief. I on the other hand believe God created the stars and He did so after He created light, as such the light did not originate from the stars themselves, therefore concluding it is not accurate to determine the age of the universe based on the viewable distance of stars. I believe this, because the Bible documents it as such.

Does that make sense, and can you see how I am not rejecting scientific fact - I am instead, holding to different presuppositions about reality and creation in general? I feel that until we see eye to eye on this, we can debate all day long and get nowhere. The reason I feel that, is because you will say things like, "The scientific fact of biliogical evolution disproves God, or at the least removes the requirement for God." and it's impossible to debate that unless we are aware of the axioms involved in that statement.

I didn't reply to your other post, as I felt we were maybe getting side-tracked there, but if you wish me to I will - maybe in a PM though so as not to clutter the thread.

Cheers,
Digit

Edit: I just wanted to add to this, in regards to the dicussion on light, and if it was ever-present or originated from the stars - it is important to note that one does not necessarily mean the other is false. I don't claim that, all I wish is that we can keep that in mind, and follow the evidence no matter where it leads. I feel, it leads points to a Creator of the universe, but not necessarily the Christian God. I have other ways of finding the identity of the Creator, and that's another set of investigations and studies.