WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Eudaimonist]

they [atheists] will believe the atheistic views which are very intangible; and many other things they cannot see and feel.

Such as?

A.

First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says); so we will meet up with Him when we leave this world, and God says that will be too late for redemption, since being in the presence of purity and holiness in our sinful nature cannot happen ---God is "...a consuming fire" as He has told us.

I only need to believe in the existence of what is real. If there is no God to meet with, then I do not have to believe in such a God.

B.

If the Bible is not accepted as "all the counsel of God" as God explains, then we are left to our own ideas.

I fail to see the problem with that.

C.

One might consider that the Creator who tells of His great love for mankind, would not leave man to wander and wonder and worry; and hold us responsible for anything He has not shown us as true.

I find that sort of claim difficult to square with human history. Many people -- even many Christians - wander and wonder and worry.

D.

God has told us of His "...so great salvation" in His own beloved Son, who He sacrificed on the altar for our sins IF we will receive Him ---Jesus, the Christ of God (note John 1; John 3; John 14).

Human beings have told us of this. It's unclear that a God was behind the message.

E.

Wisdom speaks of doing the right thing in the right time in the right way, so one needs to consider the brevity of life, and look up and obey God by His Word while there is yet time, as some of us believe.

Wisdom may counsel a non-Christian life instead.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm no longer a believer, because during my quest to be the best Christian I could be, realized there was insufficient evidence to support my beliefs. My religious faith began to soon unravel from there.

At times people ponder a reason for believing in the one and only God (consider Isa. 45:5-6). Some souls do not want anyone to be over them and greater than they are; and others want answers to satisfy their rebellious spirit. Some others think much in terms of seeing, feeling, and touching, so will not bow to that which is intangible, as they say ---though they will believe the atheistic views which are very intangible; and many other things they cannot see and feel.

A. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says); so we will meet up with Him when we leave this world, and God says that will be too late for redemption, since being in the presence of purity and holiness in our sinful nature cannot happen ---God is "...a consuming fire" as He has told us.
B. If the Bible is not accepted as "all the counsel of God" as God explains, then we are left to our own ideas.
C. One might consider that the Creator who tells of His great love for mankind, would not leave man to wander and wonder and worry; and hold us responsible for anything He has not shown us as true.
D. God has told us of His "...so great salvation" in His own beloved Son, who He sacrificed on the altar for our sins IF we will receive Him ---Jesus, the Christ of God (note John 1; John 3; John 14).
E. Wisdom speaks of doing the right thing in the right time in the right way, so one needs to consider the brevity of life, and look up and obey God by His Word while there is yet time, as some of us believe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not for me though.

For me, it is simply a matter of logic.
When being presented with an argument, I tend to look at the core logic and apply the same logic to other things to see if it still works.

With religious arguments (that I've been presented with, anyway), the core logic can be applied to anything your imagination can produce.

When you have "logic" that only applies to a special case, then you are engaging in special pleading.



I certainly agree that organized religion has resulted in quite despicable things in the past as well as the present. And when asked to present a few examples, even theists generally have thought of a few examples rather instantly.

But as far as I am concerned, these are seperate issues.
Likewise, I don't judge the ethical implications of science based on the fact that the atomic bomb was produced with that knowledge.

To me there is a clear difference between the accuracy of certain things on the one hand and what people do with it on the other.

After all, for every despicable action done in the name of religion, we can just as easily find plenty of other good things that were equally motivated by religion.

A muslim in my community for example, spends his sundays feeding the hungry (no matter their religion) and/or doing other volunteer work. And he considers that to be his islamic duty and explicitly motivates it with the Quran.

Just like ISIS doesn't motivate me to be an atheist, that nice dude also doesn't motivate me to become muslim. My rejection of the claims of Islam is not based on how muslims live their lives.



There you go.... that sounds more like it.




There's nothing "atheistic" about a theory of biology. The official position of even the Vatican is that evolution theory is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. John Paul II even called it "effectively a proven fact".



Mere bible verses will not convince me either.



False dichotomy.

The alternative to a "supreme designer" is not "total randomness".

The alternative to a supreme designer or creator is an irrational belief called atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The alternative to a supreme designer or creator is an irrational belief called atheism.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the disbelief of one very specific set of supernatural claims.

And since there is exactly zero rational evidence to believe those supernatural claims, I'ld say it is the opposite of irrational, to be an atheist.

 

[HitchSlap]

The alternative to a supreme designer or creator is an irrational belief called atheism.

Is it rational to believe Thor throws lightning bolts toward earth?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The alternative to a supreme designer or creator is an irrational belief called atheism.

Then it's a good thing that I simply don't believe in divine beings for rational reasons, regardless of what label one might affix to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Atheism is not a belief. It is the disbelief of one very specific set of supernatural claims.

And since there is exactly zero rational evidence to believe those supernatural claims, I'ld say it is the opposite of irrational, to be an atheist.

No, science has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a Cause. That cause cannot be part of the universe which fits the transcendent God. Also, since purposes exist in the universe such as eyes being for seeing and ears for hearing then the creator must be a personal being since only persons can create purposes. So also the Christian God is personal. This is basic logical reasoning utilizing the law of causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Is it rational to believe Thor throws lightning bolts toward earth?

No, but it is rational to believe what I posted in post 67.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Then it's a good thing that I simply don't believe in divine beings for rational reasons, regardless of what label one might affix to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Believing that nothing can produce something is irrational. See post 67.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Believing that nothing can produce something is irrational. See post 67.

Okay, this is just replaying previous conversations, which you have apparently forgotten, but "believing that nothing can produce something" isn't atheism and isn't required by atheism. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that nothing produced something.

Neither is it the case that the only alternative to belief in a creator God is the belief that nothing produced something. That's a false alternative.

No, science has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a Cause.

No, it has not. You are misinformed.

While the universe in its current form does require a causal explanation, physical reality as such doesn't necessarily require one, and science has certainly not shown any such thing.

Even if science had shown that the universe needs a Cause, that cause doesn't have to be a deity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, science has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a Cause

Science has done no such thing.
If anything, science has shown that it is problematic to talk about causality when it comes to the absolute origins of the universe, since causality is necessarily a temporal phenomena while the temporal does not exist if the universe doesn't exist - since "time" is an integral part of the universe itself.

No universe = no time = no temporal conditions = no causality.

Having said that, the origins of the universe are unknown.
You are welcome to make a god-of-the-gaps argument, but don't expect it to convince me of anything, aside from you making a fallacious argument in defense of your religious beliefs that aren't rooted in evidence.

That cause cannot be part of the universe which fits the transcendent God.

Talking about a "cause" for the universe, is like talking about a house that exists "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.

Also, since purposes exist in the universe

Baseless assertion.

such as eyes being for seeing and ears for hearing

Those are functions.

then the creator must be a personal being

non-sequitor

since only persons can create purposes.

No, natural phenomena are quite capable of resulting in function and in fact, it does so all the time.

So also the Christian God is personal.

Religious beliefs.

This is basic logical reasoning

Non-sequitors and arguments from ignorance/incredulity, are the opposite of "logical reasoning" - they are logical fallacies.

utilizing the law of causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause.

Causality is a temporal phenomena that applies within the space-time continuum.
It requires the space-time continuum to exist in order to manifest.

You can't use the physics of the universe and extrapolate them from the universe while pretending that they also apply "outside" of the universe (whatever that means).

Space and time are, literally, properties of the universe.
No universe = no space and no time.
No space and time = no causality.

Causes happen before effects.
There is no "before" time.
Just like there is no "north" of the north pole.

 

[bhsmte]

Believing that nothing can produce something is irrational. See post 67.

Define nothing.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, but it is rational to believe what I posted in post 67.

No.

Who caused god?

 

[HitchSlap]

Believing that nothing can produce something is irrational. See post 67.

Something you should be familiar with, whether you agree or not.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Okay, this is just replaying previous conversations, which you have apparently forgotten, but "believing that nothing can produce something" isn't atheism and isn't required by atheism. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that nothing produced something.

Neither is it the case that the only alternative to belief in a creator God is the belief that nothing produced something. That's a false alternative.



No, it has not. You are misinformed.

While the universe in its current form does require a causal explanation, physical reality as such doesn't necessarily require one, and science has certainly not shown any such thing.

Evidence that physical reality doesn't require a cause? Evidence that the universe and physical reality are two different things?

eud: Even if science had shown that the universe needs a Cause, that cause doesn't have to be a deity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The evidence points to the Christian God being the cause. It cannot be part of the effect according to logic, so that means the cause must be transcendent to the effect just like the Christian God. Purposes exist in the universe which can only come from an intelligent personal being, so the Cause must be personal and intelligent just like the Christian God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Science has done no such thing.
If anything, science has shown that it is problematic to talk about causality when it comes to the absolute origins of the universe, since causality is necessarily a temporal phenomena while the temporal does not exist if the universe doesn't exist - since "time" is an integral part of the universe itself.

No universe = no time = no temporal conditions = no causality.

Having said that, the origins of the universe are unknown.
You are welcome to make a god-of-the-gaps argument, but don't expect it to convince me of anything, aside from you making a fallacious argument in defense of your religious beliefs that aren't rooted in evidence.

There is evidence for more than one dimension of time, so the Cause can operate from one dimension of time to cause another one, the one our universe exists in. I know I wont convince you, I am just demonstrating to open minded lurkers or agnostics that Christianity is more rational than atheism.

Talking about a "cause" for the universe, is like talking about a house that exists "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.

tm: Baseless assertion.[/qutoe]

In what way?

tm: Those are functions.

No, something only functions if it fulfills its purpose. For example, an ear that functions is fulfilling its purpose to hear.

tm: non-sequitur

Evidence?

tm: No, natural phenomena are quite capable of resulting in function and in fact, it does so all the time.

Ok, provide an empirically observed example of purpose and function coming into existence naturally.

tm: Religious beliefs.

So what if it is based on evidence.

tm: Non-sequitors and arguments from ignorance/incredulity, are the opposite of "logical reasoning" - they are logical fallacies.

No, this is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge. We KNOW that purposes can only come from minds.

tm: Causality is a temporal phenomena that applies within the space-time continuum.
It requires the space-time continuum to exist in order to manifest.

You can't use the physics of the universe and extrapolate them from the universe while pretending that they also apply "outside" of the universe (whatever that means).

Space and time are, literally, properties of the universe.
No universe = no space and no time.
No space and time = no causality.

Causes happen before effects.
There is no "before" time.
Just like there is no "north" of the north pole.

See above about another dimension of time. Also, contingency is not temporal. And the universe has been proven to be contingent.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Science has done no such thing.
If anything, science has shown that it is problematic to talk about causality when it comes to the absolute origins of the universe, since causality is necessarily a temporal phenomena while the temporal does not exist if the universe doesn't exist - since "time" is an integral part of the universe itself.

No universe = no time = no temporal conditions = no causality.

Having said that, the origins of the universe are unknown.
You are welcome to make a god-of-the-gaps argument, but don't expect it to convince me of anything, aside from you making a fallacious argument in defense of your religious beliefs that aren't rooted in evidence.

There is evidence for more than one dimension of time, so the Cause can operate from one dimension of time to cause another one, the one our universe exists in. I know I wont convince you, I am just demonstrating to open minded lurkers or agnostics that Christianity is more rational than atheism.

Talking about a "cause" for the universe, is like talking about a house that exists "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.

tm: Baseless assertion.[/qutoe]

In what way?

tm: Those are functions.

No, something only functions if it fulfills its purpose. For example, an ear that functions is fulfilling its purpose to hear.

tm: non-sequitur

Evidence?

tm: No, natural phenomena are quite capable of resulting in function and in fact, it does so all the time.

Ok, provide an empirically observed example of purpose and function coming into existence naturally.

tm: Religious beliefs.

So what if it is based on evidence.

tm: Non-sequitors and arguments from ignorance/incredulity, are the opposite of "logical reasoning" - they are logical fallacies.

No, this is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge. We KNOW that purposes can only come from minds.

tm: Causality is a temporal phenomena that applies within the space-time continuum.
It requires the space-time continuum to exist in order to manifest.

You can't use the physics of the universe and extrapolate them from the universe while pretending that they also apply "outside" of the universe (whatever that means).

Space and time are, literally, properties of the universe.
No universe = no space and no time.
No space and time = no causality.

Causes happen before effects.
There is no "before" time.
Just like there is no "north" of the north pole.

See above about another dimension of time. Also, contingency is not temporal. And the universe has been proven to be contingent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evidence that physical reality doesn't require a cause?

There is no evidence that it does require a cause. That is where the burden of demonstration is.

Evidence that the universe and physical reality are two different things?

This is a logical point. I'm saying that while the universe in the form that it exists today may require a causal explanation, that doesn't mean that its physical existence requires a causal explanation. Your view runs into a logical fallacy.

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

The evidence points to the Christian God being the cause.

No, it doesn't. Science would be vastly different if it did.

It cannot be part of the effect according to logic, so that means the cause must be transcendent to the effect just like the Christian God.

While the universe in the form we see it today may be an effect of prior states of the universe, that doesn't mean that the physical existence of the universe is an effect.

Wikipedia:
The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).

Purposes exist in the universe which can only come from an intelligent personal being

Of course, but the only purposes that science knows of that can only come from an intelligent personal being are human purposes, since we are intelligent personal beings. No non-human purposes are known to exist, unless perhaps some non-human animal species may be said to have purposes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence points to the Christian God being the cause.

what evidence would that be?

It cannot be part of the effect according to logic

Is that the same logic that says that there is no "north" of the north pole and no "before" time?

That logic dictates that you can't have causality in an atemporal context.

, so that means the cause must be transcendent to the effect just like the Christian God.

Just like that house north of the northpole.

Purposes exist in the universe which can only come from an intelligent personal being

Such as?

, so the Cause must be personal and intelligent just like the Christian God.

According to the same criteria, that god must also have a cause that is "personal and intelligent".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is evidence for more than one dimension of time

What evidence would that be?

, so the Cause can operate from one dimension of time to cause another one, the one our universe exists in

And then you'll just be pushing the question back for "a dimension". Now one needs to explain where that time dimension came from.

I know I wont convince you

Because you know that you don't have the required evidence to do so.

I am just demonstrating to open minded lurkers or agnostics that Christianity is more rational than atheism.

You're not doing a really good job, I must say.