What do you believe and why?

[Archaeopteryx]

* For now, you've abandoned trust in the spirit for whatever reason yet embraced the cosmologists and astrophysicist with a kind of faith, because science has its own contending priests, imams, rabbis and theory-logians that conflict. Science also changes in understanding.

Actually, no, science doesn't have its own priests, imams and rabbis. Let's not debase science by pretending it plays on the same epistemic field as religion.

* The brilliant Lucifer lost faith in the unseen Father, so it's not just man who rebels when his demands for answers are not forthcoming.

I don't consider free inquiry to be "rebellion".

 

[Colter]

Actually, no, science doesn't have its own priests, imams and rabbis. Let's not debase science by pretending it plays on the same epistemic field as religion.



I don't consider free inquiry to be "rebellion".

I disagree completely, science often goes further than proofs of free inquiry, it makes theories facts. The "Big Bang" origin of the universe is a prime example. They see the presence of red shift and an apparently expanding universe and make final conclusions without all the facts in. Science can be just as dogmatic as religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The bible

I've come to the point where I realize that people who refute God are victims of their own misunderstanding. You will constantly reach the conclusion that you don't know and you're fine with that. You're finding comfort that you don't know and God doesn't exist. Finding comfort that there are no universal consequences to your actions, it's the same comfort that you think Christians find in knowing there is a life after. I don't believe in God to not go to hell, I believe in God because He is the definition of good and just.

The Biblical God - the one that entraps the first humans; drowns countless men, women and children in a global flood; and commands the Israelites to commit genocide - seems very far from good and just.

If God didn't exist it would absolutely make life here and now much easier, we wouldn't be accountable for anything we do.

How does that follow? We are still accountable.

We could do anything we wanted, sure we'd have to face consequences that man as made, but on a universal level it doesn't really matter at all. If I were to go to each one of your houses and steal everything you owned and beat you, you would surely say that was wrong. But on a cosmic level, on your own understanding of the universe, it's not wrong. So you would be a hypocrite to impose any sense of right and wrong and you should look at my actions as just that, actions.

That doesn't follow. Why do your actions need to have some grand cosmic effect in order for you to be held accountable for them? That your actions had adverse consequences for other people is sufficient to call them 'wrong.'

The very existence of God is proven by your own sense of justice.

How does my sense of justice, my conscience, prove the existence of a deity, and not just any deity, but the one you believe in?

<snip>

I had a very real realization this morning and it really bothered me. I think people know that I can get really aggressive with people here on these forums, that is not my intention. My realization was this, many of the people I am talking to are on a very dangerous path, they are quite literally playing with fire. I do not want anyone to believe in God or even consider it out of danger of hell, but it doesn't change the fact that many of the people I talk to are going there. The reasoning behind this is that God is perfectly just, and just as a judge who punishes a criminal, God's very nature demands justice.

The very concept of Hell is irreconcilable with that of a just and benevolent deity.

I'm happy to hear that the thought of people suffering in agony for eternity saddens you because it suggests a level of compassion far greater than that of the deity that condemns people to such an abominable fate. Ask yourself this: will you still be sad in Heaven knowing that there are countless people suffering in Hell? Will you be able to enjoy the fruits of Paradise while you aware of the poor souls languishing in the bowels of Hell?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I disagree completely, science often goes further than proofs of free inquiry, it makes theories facts. The "Big Bang" origin of the universe is a prime example. They see the presence of red shift and an apparently expanding universe and make final conclusions without all the facts in. Science can be just as dogmatic as religion.

I would disagree with the bolded statement. When it comes to the universe, for years, the best brains believed in a concept called the static universe. However, due to seeing the redshift and other things, the evidence pointed to an expanding universe. Taking that rate of expansion and running it backwards gave rise to the Big Bang theory...which, based on current evidence, makes sense.

If one TRULY studies the history of the different sciences, it is obvious that the scientists go where the facts and evidence leads, not preconceived notions. Recently, Hawking admitted he was wrong with certain aspects of black holes. Why? Because there was new evidence that disproved the old.

A scientific theory is developed by making a hypothesis. Then that hypothesis is tested. If the result differs even ONCE, then the hypothesis is considered to be disproven. Very few scientists are "dogmatic" about much of anything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I disagree completely, science often goes further than proofs of free inquiry, it makes theories facts. The "Big Bang" origin of the universe is a prime example. They see the presence of red shift and an apparently expanding universe and make final conclusions without all the facts in. Science can be just as dogmatic as religion.

You misunderstand. The Big Bang theory is meant to explain a particular body of facts, including red shift, among others. If information becomes available that the Big Bang theory cannot account for, then it is either revised or discarded in favour of a better theory. What's dogmatic about that?

 

[Colter]

I would disagree with the bolded statement. When it comes to the universe, for years, the best brains believed in a concept called the static universe. However, due to seeing the redshift and other things, the evidence pointed to an expanding universe. Taking that rate of expansion and running it backwards gave rise to the Big Bang theory...which, based on current evidence, makes sense.

If one TRULY studies the history of the different sciences, it is obvious that the scientists go where the facts and evidence leads, not preconceived notions. Recently, Hawking admitted he was wrong with certain aspects of black holes. Why? Because there was new evidence that disproved the old.

A scientific theory is developed by making a hypothesis. Then that hypothesis is tested. If the result differs even ONCE, then the hypothesis is considered to be disproven. Very few scientists are "dogmatic" about much of anything.

A theory is not a fact. The universe may just as well "resperate", expand and contract.

 

[Colter]

You misunderstand. The Big Bang theory is meant to explain a particular body of facts, including red shift, among others. If information becomes available that the Big Bang theory cannot account for, then it is either revised or discarded in favour of a better theory. What's dogmatic about that?

There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but when it is taught as a fact then that's no longer science, that's a philosophy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but when it is taught as a fact then that's no longer science, that's philosophy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "taught as a fact." The phrasing of that evokes memory of "teach the controversy," which is something that creationists have been demanding with regard to evolution.

There seems to be this notion that scientists need to be perpetually modest, even when it comes to well-evidenced theories. Epistemic humility is something to aspire toward, but we can be humble about what we have learned scientifically without debasing science to the same level epistemically as religion. We certainly don't owe it to religion to "teach the controversy" simply because the religious demand it of us.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

"If God didn't exist it would absolutely make life here and now much easier, we wouldn't be accountable for anything we do. We could do anything we wanted, sure we'd have to face consequences that man as made, but on a universal level it doesn't really matter at all. If I were to go to each one of your houses and steal everything you owned and beat you, you would surely say that was wrong. But on a cosmic level, on your own understanding of the universe, it's not wrong. So you would be a hypocrite to impose any sense of right and wrong and you should look at my actions as just that, actions. The very existence of God is proven by your own sense of justice."

I would disagree with you here. I have found that even "non-believers" have a moral code that essentially is the same as "do unto others..." It has been shown sociologically that whether a society is Christian or not, the same sort of moral compass exists. Even little children with no knowledge of God have a moral compass of right and wrong.

I do not quite know how you get from this internal moral compass to proof that God exists...and claiming that those who do not believe are moral reprobates. I would submit that there are more Christians who are moral reprobates who SHOULD know better but refuse to act on that higher level.

God made man in His image, all men not just believers. Do you think our sense of right and wrong comes from the bible or that God breathed it into us? You should really not let the secular world blend its ideology into your faith, this is the result.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

...



The very concept of Hell is irreconcilable with that of a just and benevolent deity.

I'm happy to hear that the thought of people suffering in agony for eternity saddens you because it suggests a level of compassion far greater than that of the deity that condemns people to such an abominable fate. Ask yourself this: will you still be sad in Heaven knowing that there are countless people suffering in Hell? Will you be able to enjoy the fruits of Paradise while you aware of the poor souls languishing in the bowels of Hell?

You said you were a Christian... and this is your take on it? I honestly expected you to have a far better understanding of this subject.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You said you were a Christian... and this is your take on it? I honestly expected you to have a far better understanding of this subject.

Yes, I was a Christian. Over time, my concept of Hell changed, however, from a place of fire and brimstone to a state of separation from God. I am assuming that your concept of Hell aligns more closely with the former rather than the latter. It is the former that is particularly irreconcilable with the notion of a just and benevolent deity.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Aa a Deist of of the past about eight months as opposed to a Christian on and off prior I believe that a single God created everything, but then I am not sure what.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Yes, I was a Christian. Over time, my concept of Hell changed, however, from a place of fire and brimstone to a state of separation from God. I am assuming that your concept of Hell aligns more closely with the former rather than the latter. It is the former that is particularly irreconcilable with the notion of a just and benevolent deity.

I'm not talking about the physical aspect of hell. I'm talking about your understanding as why such a punishment must occur. People often scream injustice when confronted with hell instead of actually understanding the justice of it.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm not talking about the physical aspect of hell. I'm talking about your understanding as why such a punishment must occur. People often scream injustice when confronted with hell instead of actually understanding the justice of it.

or maybe some people feel as though Hell does not fit many crimes and feel that for that reason it is not justice.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not talking about the physical aspect of hell. I'm talking about your understanding as why such a punishment must occur. People often scream injustice when confronted with hell instead of actually understanding the justice of it.

I've yet to see anyone convincingly show that eternal torture is a just punishment for any crime.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

or maybe some people feel as though Hell does not fit many crimes and feel that for that reason it is not justice.

Any sin against an infinite God would receive an infinite punishment without forgiveness. Consider someone who steals from you and never apologizes, he would forever be guilty in your eyes. Then if he never received punishment for his crime you would scream injustice. You wouldn't if he apologized. Crime never forgives itself, a criminal is always a criminal if he himself doesn't repent and change. We cannot put our own level of punishment on sin, wrong is wrong. God does view sin on a different level its just the punishment is the same. I would be more willing to help a murderer who has truly found his own guilt then a thief who never realizes that he has done wrong.

 

[Colter]

I'm not sure what you mean by "taught as a fact." The phrasing of that evokes memory of "teach the controversy," which is something that creationists have been demanding with regard to evolution.

There seems to be this notion that scientists need to be perpetually modest, even when it comes to well-evidenced theories. Epistemic humility is something to aspire toward, but we can be humble about what we have learned scientifically without debasing science to the same level epistemically as religion. We certainly don't owe it to religion to "teach the controversy" simply because the religious demand it of us.

I used the example of the Big Bang, we agree that facts point to a big bang. There is nothing wrong with theorizing so long as we all agree its a theory and not yet established as fact. Because a true scientist would concede that there may be other facts yet to be discovered which would effect the theory.

Evolution is more than a theory, the overwhelming material facts in the geological and archeological record are irrefutable; analysis of the earth reveals layers of different kinds of life that lived in different ages. Radiometric dating is established in sound laws of physics. More facts that fill in gaps will help but the threshold has been met.

Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith — human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Any sin against an infinite God would receive an infinite punishment without forgiveness.

Why? How can the actions of a mere mortal harm an omnipotent and omniscient being? It seems as futile as trying to strangle air.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I used the example of the Big Bang, we agree that facts point to a big bang. There is nothing wrong with theorizing so long as we all agree its a theory and not yet established as fact.

...

Evolution is more than a theory, the overwhelming material facts in the geological and archeological record are irrefutable; analysis of the earth reveals layers of different kinds of life that lived in different ages. Radiometric dating is established in sound laws of physics. More facts that fill in gaps will help but the threshold has been met.

You seem to be confused as to what a 'theory' means in science.

Because a true scientist would concede that there may be other facts yet to be discovered which would effect the theory.

You know of a cosmologist who says otherwise regarding the Big Bang theory?

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Why? How can the actions of a mere mortal harm an omnipotent and omniscient being? It seems as futile as trying to strangle air.

Why would you take that and ignore the rest of what I said? The answer is clearly in the rest. We know of a God who loves us and is very much involved with our lives. He died on the cross for us so that His perfect justice would be fulfilled. You speak of a God that holds us with no regard, which further makes me question your prior Christian standings.