• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

The Bible Claims...

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by cvanwey, May 21, 2018.

  1. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,383
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    View attachment 229386
    Christians, this argument is valid for us internally. All belief is circuarly self referential like this, because the belief accepts all the premises. But our audience doesn't accept all our premises. So this is not useful to them. We can't just transmit our beliefs, we must explain why we believe it. Maybe it is from reading the Bible, but our Belief is not because the Bible stated so. Something happened in each of you that led you to the conclusion that what was said in the Bible was actually true. Whatever that was, that is what you should lead with.
     
  2. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I too have asked myself such questions...

    Here's what I wrestle with, thus far....

    1) The universe is eternal, as many Cosmologists 'speculate', based upon the growing data collected. If this is the case, to ask whom created the universe would be just about as illogical as asking, 'what's north of the North pole?, what's faster than the speed of light?, what's slower than stop? What's colder than absolute zero?'

    2) The universe always was, but changes form (or) multiverse. This might imply some type of 'change agent', but not necessarily a creator, per say... I doubt Yahweh would be merely a change agent?.?.?

    3) Something from nothing... However, if God is omnitemporal, but time and space was yet to be created, then this might imply that temporal predicates do not apply? Which is then another contradiction. Furthermore, what did God dwell in prior to the 'universe(s)'? - Assuming one defines universe appropriately... It begs of special pleading attributes, right out of the gate.... (Doesn't necessarily make it false, just saying...)

    Abiogenesis may account from life, from non-life?

    When one ponders, it really depends on one's definition of free will? Are we to use the classic definitions (i.e.) 'the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate' (or) Hard determinism vs libertarianism vs other...?

    But to 'conclude' the unmoved mover argument, really begs many fallacies right out of the gate...

    In regards to consciousness, primates, mag pies, and other animals are self aware, and present a conscious. What is 'your' definition? Humans only?

    consciousness - 'the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings'

    Thanks
     
  3. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I would really like to know myself? When I read the Bible, I seem to receive the opposite affect of others. The more I read it, the more I become skeptical, due to the growing number of apparent inconsistencies in which appear not to align with my 'known' reality. I'm not saying this to mock or hurt others feelings. I'm being deeply honest.

    I wish no ill will towards others. All I'm saying, is that I do not receive a feeling of warmth, tingling, or of knowing that I'm receiving any higher presence, while reading the Bible. On the flip side, I read many parts and say to myself, 'welp, that does not appear to fit, or that, or that.'

    I know most do not want to hear this, and again, think I'm here to mock. However, I'm actually open to explanation, interpretation, and greatly appreciate all responses thus far.
     
  4. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I'm sorry you are hurt. I have no presupposed agenda. I'm being extremely honest.

    I am not disgarding what you are saying. However, regardless of all that you have said, there exists many verses which appear to require nothing more than circular reasoning, and faith to believe.

    I have no doubt people, places, and events are fairly accurate. However, I will provide a small analogy, which I've provided other times (maybe even prior in this post).

    Alexander the Great most likely lived in Alexandria, conquered nations, and died of fever. But does this then also mean he really was the son of Zeus?

    I could also most certainly accuse you of avoiding my observation. Which is, Mathew 27:52 is not validated by any witnesses. How might this be a credible claim, which is a huge one?

    If one states you must believe, but there exists no evidence, and this also holds true for other claimed events, with no evidence, by what standard was the claim established as truth?

    This is my point... Yes, some stuff might be true? However, this does not mean everything is. And unfortunately, based upon my research, all supernatural claims appear to have little to no supporting evidence, other than hearsay, oral tradition, and demonstrate growing legend.

    If you choose not to respond, I may only conclude I may be striking a nerve of some sort. However, I'm only posting my honest assessment, without any agenda or malice intended.
     
  5. Godistruth1

    Godistruth1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +180
    India
    Muslim
    Single
    Perfectly said
     
  6. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,831
    Christian
    Single
    Think bigger, those things are nothing compared to all that is in the universe.

    What's your rational for the stupendous supernatural event that caused us and what's all around us? There is nothing rational about any other conclusion but a creator, for example:

    Are you aware of the insurmountable odds of lets say my pouring a bunch of computer parts out on a table and for them to fall together as a complete and working computer? Even if I did it ten times a day for millions of years to increase my odds, and I'm starting with parts, not raw materials that have yet to create themselves, but still. it's just not going to happen....ever, and even if it did, that's nothing compared to all the complicated workings that are in operation now.

    So using the process of elimination, and with the alternative now out of the picture, plus the fact, the only way we have "ever" seen anything come to be is by us creating it, we have "never" seen something come out of nothing, never even once, I then conclude, there just isn't any other way to go but a creator.
     
  7. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    The odds of everything is VERY low. You know what the odds of you are? When you were conceived, your father dispersed >20,000,000 sperm. Your mother has 300 eggs. Each sperm differs. If any other sperm, reached either the same egg, or another egg, you would not be here right now.

    Therefore, 20 million X 300 = 1/6,000,000,000! And this is assuming your parents only had sex one time. This is also assuming your father did not release 100,000,000 sperm, as the range is 20 - 100 million. So, you are at least one in 6 billion. What are the odds of that? :-0
     
  8. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,383
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    1 and 2. I don't know anyone that thinks the universe, or it's parent, is eternal. The 2nd law of thermodynamics rules that hypothesis out. I also find it rediculous to decide not to wonder why it exists non contingently. I am glad you see the incoherence of something coming out of nothing in your pointing toward past eternal existence. The only coherent solution will be an eternal one, and why God, who exists a se, becomes a metaphysical necessity in that a past eternal universe does not match with observation.

    3. Our temporal predicates do not recede beyond space time, time is relative if you recall. As to what God dwelled in, all that can be said is that he did not dwell in a world like ours. There is no logical limitation that states all dwellings must be in worlds like ours, nor is it required to have external referential locality to exist. Special pleading is in regards to subjects that should normally have the same constraints. It is illogical to have carry this worlds expectations, into the state of affairs that preceded it, beyond what is a logical necessity.

    Abiogenesis is a word. It is a place holder for a working theory.

    We don't need to contemplate whether determinism includes free will, it doesn't. But how can contingent determined ingredients result in, non contingent, free willed agents? I am asking you about humans so you can start from there.

    An unmoved mover doesn't beg any questions it is a metaphysical necessity due to the problem of infinite causal regress.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2018
  9. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Then you obviously have not studied cosmology and do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
     
  10. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,383
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Is your own view of ''known reality" justified or simply popular?
     
  11. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,383
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Perhaps you are thinking of models without a begining point? They still have a begining, just not a begining point. There is a lot of sensationalism you have to navigate through in cosmology.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  12. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,465
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Exd. 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Deut. 31:9 So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.

    Deut. 31:22 Therefore Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the children of Israel.

    Mark 12:19 Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies, and leaves his wife behind, and leaves no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.

    John 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

    Obviously not true, Moses did write the Torah. I would agree that the history as found in Genesis was somebody else (I believe Shem) and the wilderness account outside of the law and judgments also probably somebody else (not sure who, perhaps Aaron?). But Moses clearly wrote the law as dictated by God.
     
  13. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,831
    Christian
    Single
    Yet, here we are, and for me, I can only take that as a given, and try to figure out "how" using the process of elimination.
     
  14. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    +295
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    By a method which is unknown to humans but they use this method all the times without their own awareness.

    Now tell me what you yourself did on May 23 2015?

    Not one out of the 7 billions humans on earth can somehow answer this questions. Simply because evidence of that day of your deeds and speeches don't exist. This is true especially before the invention of photos and videos. Strictly speaking, photos and videos are not evidence but testimonies in a more reliable form, their dates and contents can still be faked.

    Now what method can be used for us to possibly get to what you did on May 23 2015? If an eyewitness (or yourself) wrote it down what you did (or better tape it down) for us to believe with faith. That could possibly be the only way (if not the only way, it remains the most efficient way) for us to get to know what you did that day.

    Everything else boils down to how reliable and credible this eyewitness is. The NT Bible was written/compiled/crafted by those claimed eyewitnesses who were willing to martyr themselves in order for their testimonies to spread.

    Human witnessing is an exclusive method for humans to reach a truth of any kind. The so-called "evidence" is a joke. You are brainwashed by secular education since childhood to think evidence is the way how humans determine a truth/fact while it's not! The more fundamental way for humans in majority to determine a truth is by faith! (believe it or not).

    99.99% humans don't even bother to examine the evidence that earth is actually revolving around the sun (a scientific truth). We put faith in that our scientists (as our eye-witnesses) won't be mistaken about this. They are the reliable and credible eye-witnesses.

    When you watch TV for daily news, you don't dig up evidence behind each piece of news. Instead you rely on our media which is made of reports and journalists as eyewitnesses to reach each and every piece of facts. This is so because our media is thought to be reliable and credible.

    Now you have the following,
    1 History (such as what you did on May 23, 2015) is unreachable directly to humans. We can't verify distant history under most circumstances (believe or not, if not pick any history and count which page is supported by evidence).

    2 Science (such as earth revolving around sun) is reachable by us as science is all about a repeating phenomenon. It repeats indefinitely for us to acquire evidence anytime we wish to. However, somehow 99.99% of us don't bother to do so. We'd rather put faith in our scientists to trust that they have the evidence.

    3 Today's occurrence (such as TV news) can be reachable by us as they are freshly happening. You can always go to the Royal Wedding by yourself instead of trusting what is broadcast. Yet 99.99% of us choose to sit home without gathering any evidence but putting faith that our media is faithfully telling the story.

    Do you have any other truths which don't rely on faith to convey? How about the future?

    Humans are more futile about the future (than the history such as what you did on May 23, 2015). The only possible way for humans to reach what could possibly lying ahead is, again, by putting faith in human accounts of witnessing. They are liars or not, it's the only possible way for us to possibly get to a truth of our future.

    Future is unreachable to humans directly. However if God exists and tells our future to His chosen eyewitnesses (by a coincidence, in Christianity all OT prophets are called God's witnesses), we can thus reach such a truth by putting faith in those witnesses.

    So it all boils down to how reliable and credible those claimed eyewitnesses are? I bet that you can't make it more credible when they choose to sacrifice their own lives in order to bring the message out.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  15. Godistruth1

    Godistruth1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +180
    India
    Muslim
    Single
    Theists would believe universe began to exist through big bang and universe is expanding since scientists find stars moving away to the point that they are not to be seen anymore. Now who caused the big bang? Again God/creator who must be conscious and powerful to create universe which is organised and not chaotic(keeping in mind nothing organised comes from chaos from what we have observed around us). Its logical to base our belief on observations we make for universe around us.
    From what we see around us and know of everything that begins to exist(not speaking of theories but what we know of & can be verified)required a cause to come into existence so its logical to believe everything that begins to exist requires a cause. Now the first cause must be uncaused. By that I mean God cannot be created because if God was created by some cause & its possible that cause(for creation of God) was caused by some other cause & it could go on forever. We will have problem of infinite regression. Eg if a sniper has to take a shot, it needs permission from it's superior and if the superior requires permission from his superior and so on forever, the sniper would never take the shot. There must be an end who is the ultimate person to give the permission.
    Also keeping in mind Occam's Razor law, we would want theories to be simpler so eliminating God creating God creating god and so on and then the universe. Let's stick to God/creator and then universe.

    We cannot say where did God dwell. Lack of proof or justification does not make something not true/untrue unless there is proof, proving it to be not true/untrue. There could be universe that we live in which is bound to time and where God is which is not bound to time or laws of universe. Again just a speculation.

    Sorry if my English is boring or something I said is silly. I'm not a Westerner. Happy to discuss it and correct myself if something more logical comes up :)
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  16. Godistruth1

    Godistruth1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +180
    India
    Muslim
    Single
    Yes, that would make sense(speaking about your description of proof). Its a question of highest probability or what makes most sense that we must believe in. We actually cannot prove man landed on moon except for testimonies or videos that can be faked. Its just the law of there is more chance of it to be true than untrue that we base our belief on. Nothing is 100% proof unless we verify it ourselves. So evolution or belief in God are both beliefs and are based on possibilities and we base our belief on what makes most sense to us and not what has proof and what hasn't!
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  17. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,383
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Apart from volitional and stochastic conditions the probability of most events is high due to the deterministic conditions that preceded it. The blind probability that I was born is low, but the entire procreative event occurred within a deterministic system that should have a high, mostly non stochastic probability. The issue with naturalistic origins is that aside from survival, it is entirely driven by random chance, and so it's blind probability is it's actual probability. The only way around that is to accept teleology into the system.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2018
  18. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I do not appeal to popularity. I honestly weigh the evidence. I admit I am a skeptic. I 'feel' being a skeptic is a 'good' thing. The larger the claim, the more I question. If the 'facts' do not 'appear' to align with the claim, 'my' reason tells me the 'less likely' it becomes reality.

    I've had close friends, family, and colleagues all present anecdotal stories of speaking to their "God", out of body experiences (near death), or even UFO sightings. Though I view most of these individuals as purely rational, intelligent, and clear thinking, I've found that many have a soft spot (or bias) towards a heightened willingness to 'believe'. This is no fault, or reason for ridicule.

    I 'feel' being a skeptic is a healthy attribute to obtain, along with it being almost imperative for survival and/or not getting ripped off, in many cases. Which leads me to one of the most important questions of all, at least to me... If I cannot get myself to believe in such claimed tales from the Bible, which ultimately leads me to conclude a lack in belief to a supernatural claimed deity, and this lack in belief is what ultimately drives me to hell, based upon verses from the Bible (via Mark 16:15-16 or John 3:16-21), is this rational???? If I'm intellectually honest with myself, evaluate the evidence, and conclude I must reject such Biblical stories, based upon 'my' necessary lack in evidence, is God really going to punish me for this? When I read the Bible, and if it IS actually true, then the aforementioned verses state 'yes.'
     
  19. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    In 'my' view, the 'majority' of scientists appear extremely humble. Meaning, are very tentative to 'assert' a conclusion, for fear of ridicule from their peers. Scientists attempt to discredit their own hypotheses. It is the job of the scientific community to try and 'disprove' their own, and others, conclusions, based upon research.

    When 'reputable' scientists reach a conclusion, it is usually not based upon a 'gut feeling', 'hunch', or 'hope' of a specific conclusion, it instead becomes the unbiased conclusion they must draw, based upon the 'evidence' and where this evidence leads them.

    Does this mean it is 'correct', not always. However, peer review 'appears' to be a great way to assess scientific models and scientific theory...
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  20. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +716
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I'm sorry, but using the Bible to prove the Bible could not be more circular. Another verse stating Moses wrote these verses means very little. One must instead assess the evidence...

    Dating the texts, scholars can see the Hebrew words in which were used, such as references to camels, appears to conclude otherwise... There were no camels in that part of the world at 'that' time. This fact alone tells us these texts were written many centuries later....
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2018
Loading...