Atheists: Does anything attract you to Christianity?

[zacchaeus]

To be humane. But not all dogs go to heaven... Without God you have no morality- oh well

[Philip]

Nessa: God reveals himself to the seeker and the non seeker as far as I'm aware...

This is true. However, He gives one enough reason and knowledge that makes it reasonable to seek more than He has ALREADY provided, if one feels they need and DESIRE more. But to ignore what one ALREADY has been shown (even just that He must exist), to ignore all reasonable evidence, to AVOID seeking to know MORE, to be determined to not believe except upon YOUR terms, God will not do this. He knows - and has ALWAYS known - what level of evidence and knowledge a person requires to know and seek Him out. The Apostle Paul required a radical, powerful attention getter. After being blinded on that road to Damascus, he could have rationalized that he had hallucinated, that some unknown illness had hit him, that no way could he have been wrong about that Christian "cult." And he spent some time afterward contemplating what had happened to him. But he responded to the level of knowledge of God HE needed. Remember, Paul WANTED to serve God, and thought he was doing so - but had failed to recognize exactly WHO that was. Others need far less or require different sorts of barriers to faith removed before they can believe. God knows exactly what is needed vs. what is asserted needed. The first is truly critical, and God will provide that to the one who truly wants it, and as He knows providing it will be effective. He also knows the latter will never be effective, as there's a difference.

But, yes, Nessa, God does reach to us FIRST. If He did not, no one would be saved - an important and critical nuance.

[Audie]

Without God you have no morality- oh well

No need to remind me why I ignore you.

[Kurieuo]

I recall reading Paul Davies who reasoned multiple universe with regards to the something that has always existed, still leads to absurdities like the "Big Bang" singularity if our universe were the only one.

Basically, since physical laws themselves are changeable i.e., could be different from one universe to the next, they are contingent. Therefore these physical laws that spawn from once universe to the next beg themselves for an explanation as to why they are the way they are and not something other.

Moving beyond Davies, in a timeless multiverse (which many would like to prove), there is the metaphysical assumption that time is not foundational to a multiverse -- that time only emerges inside universes as part of the physics. This means that on the most foundational level our universe is part of a timeless, eternal ensemble of universes. And this is what gives rise to a hypothetical possibility of an infinite number of universes.

It doesn't pass my notice, that similar attributes that I as a Theist ascribed to God, are being ascribed to a multiverse. It is also interesting that metaphysics (i.e., philosophy) is being depended upon to describe what is/isn't possible with multiverse scenarios. But, that doesn't surprise me as logic and reasoning often sets the limits for what is/isn't possible even if such can't say what is actual.

Respected physicist Lee Smolin, who argues for evolving laws, disagrees with the metaphysical assumptions of a timeless multiverse (required for an infinite number of universes). Rather, he believes such to be untestable or falsifiable i.e., we can't really explain why our one universe is setup with the anthropic principle, so let's posit an infinite number of universes.

Further to this unfalsifiability, I'd further add it allows for unpredictability. Why things could possibly just pop in and out of existence within our world for no apparent reason. The physical laws as we know them, are no longer within a closed system. Why, instead of saying "God did it" people can just start claiming it was the "timeless multiverse." At least with an intelligence, such can sustain an order. On a multiverse, there is no real reason why the laws should be always upheld.

As a reference for the unfalsifiability:

• Horgan: Some leading physicists, such as Tegmark, Susskind, and Greene, espouse multiverse theories plus the anthropic principle as a kind of final framework for cosmology. Comment?
  
  Smolin: This is a sleigh of hand by which they hope to convert an explanatory failure into an explanatory success. If we don’t understand the values the fundamental constants take in our universe, just presume our universe is a member of an infinite and unobservable ensemble of universes each with randomly chosen parameters. Our universe has the values it does because those make it hospitable to life.
  
  There is so much wrong with this as a scientific hypothesis. As I have explained in detail in three of my books and several papers, it is hard to see how it could make any falsifiable predictions for doable experiments. Claims to the contrary are fallacious, as I and others have explained in detail. I won’t impose the details on your readers but just mention that these criticisms have not been answered.
  
  What we have to do is to propose mechanisms by which the laws and constants may have evolved which imply falsifiable predictions by which they can be checked. I have proposed two: cosmological natural selection and the principle of precedence.

So then, on the back of Smolin, if we haven't got an infinite number of universes, then we've still got a finite multiverse and a beginning. This just makes more noticeable Davies' reasoning based upon the contingency of laws in the universe further -- namely given their contingency then there is something more foundational to them.

I'd myself ask not simply why the laws are the way they are (or "evolved the way they are" as Smolin would say), but why these unnecessary laws exist especially given the finiteness of them all. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is something monkeying behind the scenes.

[Kenny]

Ken...

do you actually want to believe in God?

My view is a bit closer to Audie's view on the issue where as I don't believe I choose what I believe. For me belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. While true; a person can choose to listen evidence that supports his agenda and he can choose to ignore evidence that may refute it, but he is still going with the evidence he receives even though he has control over what he receives. Hope that makes sense.

Ken

[Kenny]

Absolutely, a derivative cannot have more power or intelligence than its source; it cannot do more than it was given capability, design and programming.

How do you know this?

Ken, what sprang from that singularity is of such unfathable design and function, from the galactic level down to the microscopic, that we scarcely understand more than a tiny portion of it. NO supercomputer built by man is remotely close to the intricate design and functionality of a simple cell. From that singularity sprang immense, incomprehensible intelligent design and function, not to mention unfathomable power and scale of its reach. So, either this eternally existing singularity or some related, eternal, and prior component had its incredible sophistication and power. Bottom line, SOME eternal, incredibly powerful entity is responsible for all that exists.

Sorry about the bong comment.

As I said before, if you don't accept actual infinities exist then that is all you need to reject the notion that there could be an infinite chain of cause and effect. On the other hand if you do accept that everything has a prior cause then it seems impossible to explain how the 'first thing' could have happened.

Basically, it looks as if the universe shouldn't exist - but, despite the philosophical inconvenience - it does.
I take this to imply that whatever happened back then, intuition and simple common-sense logic is not going to tell us anything very useful. We must be missing an essential piece of the puzzle and until someone finds it, the origin of the universe is going to - or rather will appear to - defy logic.

As I see it, the Cosmological Argument (the argument you seem to be making) says something very obviously true - the origin of the universe must have been very peculiar. But it is an absurd leap of illogic to conclude universe was created by a god, even worse by God.

Might not one call whatever brought the universe into existence God? Well, maybe, but God is such a loaded term. 'God' implies an entity with a personality, with consciousness and desirses and preferences. For some, it even implies an entity that 'so loved the world he gave his only begotten son' etc., and who provides a home for dead souls. It is obviously going beyond valid logical inference to suppose all that is true just because the origin of the universe was a distinctly odd event.
God is very much 'god of the gaps', and the origin of the universe is a gap. But I doubt if it will be a gap forever. Until then theists can comfort themselves with the cosmological argument and atheists will continue to ignore it.

Ken

During out privet email I brought up...

...We ignore (the existence of God) and pretend by spending a tremendous amount of time justifying that we can't hear him for this or that reason and demand he perform for us (to our satisfaction)...

You hate it when people put expectations and demand your performance or else. Yet you do so toward God as others here. Why should God tap dance for you? He created the universe, allowed you to exist, battles evil at he same time is blamed for the evil and disease we cause!

Again Ken as stated earlier...

...He (God) has been speaking to you for some time but by your very admitted too imperfections, these have stopped up your ears to discount what you hear as valid so that you can continue to justify remaining as you are.... ...making the same old mistakes, succumb to the same old issues. Well, there is freedom from this, Ken.

You are running in circles... and want proof of God existence?

As in the privet email - here is the only method...

God gives salvation freedom freely. All you have to do is want it and admit personally your own dysfunctions to him. It is easy, it is called praying. So I suggest you simply use this prayer as a template and add to it your own words...

Lord Jesus, have mercy upon me, I am a mess, and make so many messes. I ain't perfect and I doubt you so I ask you to release me, forgive me of all my wrongs and things I did awakened my within my own conscience and feel so bad about doing, I did this...

Have mercy upon me and make me know your name and that you are really real, forgive me, cleanse me, make me your own, grant me that new life - born again-ness all those folks tell me about. I want to hear you and know you. I feel let down because last time...

So this time...

I am reaching for you, have mercy on me and all I done, make me born of your Holy Spirit, release me the debts I feel I owe inside, never let me go. Reveal yourself to me by infilling me with your presence, in Jesus' name - amen

Ken - feel free to keep on praying too.

You want to know him and how real he is, well, that is the method... used to verify God is perfect because he came for you...

Blessings

So you think God will make demand on you to perform? Yet it is you who are demanding of him...

Only one way - one method to know him and hear him... come as you are without one plea...

End of story, no ands, buts, or if's about it...
-
-
-

Ken, you'll never find that which you don't WANT to find! You'll never find that which you must seek. God will never show you more than you NEED (which is different, depending upon the particular man) - as opposed to what you assert you need. God says to a man, "THIS information is far more than enough for this particular man to know I exist, so that he will then pursue Me so that I will both confirm and subsequently strengthen it." While that particular man says to God (while pretending that God doesn't exist), "But I need THIS level of proof, or THAT specific thing" (and thus keeps moving the target for what proof he supposedly needs). God's response: "I won't give you more because it would be useless to you, because you do not have an INFORMATION problem, and what you assert you need, IF provided, would only be additionally rejected as well. And so, you have enough - it's YOUR responsibility now, I've done MY part. But I won't force your belief, I'll let YOU choose."

God addresses the above in Romans 1:18-25.

Wow! Where did that come from? Talking about coming out of left field; I made a comment about the Cosmological Argument, and I get this. Quite a bit to digest, I will have to get back at you guys on that one okay?

Ken

[Kenny]

.

[zacchaeus]

Logic doesn't always dictate will...

You cannot come to God unless He pricks your heart and quickens you.

[zacchaeus]

Jesus should obviously be the most appealing thing to anyone really... Christianity the religious system nor all that comes with it saves you except JESUS!!! There is nobody else like Him, He is one of a kind, namely because He is God and He chose to reveal Himself.

The most unattractive are people...
Namely they suck at life and let you down all the time. We are poor representatives and give ourselves bad names. If we could only get out the way.

[Philip]

You cannot come to God unless He pricks your heart and quickens you.

AND He will do so for ANYONE who is willing to and will want to believe, whom He foreknows will respond, at some point, to His opening of their eyes. He has already said to the world, He stands at the door knocking for "ANYONE" who invites Him in, that He desires "ALL" men come to repentance and salvation. But He also allows all to resist and reject Him.

[Audie]

Nessa: God reveals himself to the seeker and the non seeker as far as I'm aware...

This is true. However, He gives one enough reason and knowledge that makes it reasonable to seek more than He has ALREADY provided, if one feels they need and DESIRE more. But to ignore what one ALREADY has been shown (even just that He must exist), to ignore all reasonable evidence, to AVOID seeking to know MORE, to be determined to not believe except upon YOUR terms, God will not do this. He knows - and has ALWAYS known - what level of evidence and knowledge a person requires to know and seek Him out. The Apostle Paul required a radical, powerful attention getter. After being blinded on that road to Damascus, he could have rationalized that he had hallucinated, that some unknown illness had hit him, that no way could he have been wrong about that Christian "cult." And he spent some time afterward contemplating what had happened to him. But he responded to the level of knowledge of God HE needed. Remember, Paul WANTED to serve God, and thought he was doing so - but had failed to recognize exactly WHO that was. Others need far less or require different sorts of barriers to faith removed before they can believe. God knows exactly what is needed vs. what is asserted needed. The first is truly critical, and God will provide that to the one who truly wants it, and as He knows providing it will be effective. He also knows the latter will never be effective, as there's a difference.

But, yes, Nessa, God does reach to us FIRST. If He did not, no one would be saved - an important and critical nuance.

Or "Paul" could have concocted the story like he did with the one about the snake.

[Nessa]

Jesus should obviously be the most appealing thing to anyone really...

No, not obvious at all. He offended many and still offends many. And then not every one finds 'made up' stories appealing. Not that I believe he is made up but others do.

[Bluejay4]

.

Ken, what do you make of this quote?

''There are different definitions for proof. There are proofs in mathematics and logic. There is proof that you love someone. Proof is sometimes based on evidence, reasoning, certification, facts, or reasonable demonstration of the truth, but to prove that a historical figure existed is very difficult. Basically, the best we can do is provide evidence and leave it up to the individual to consider whether or not the evidence is sufficient.''

[Bluejay4]

My source being this article here https://carm.org/proof-that-jesus-existed in case any of you are interested.

[zacchaeus]

Who did He offend and how...

Religious leaders?
...and by simply saying Who He was???