True Religion

[ninjapotato]

I've heard skeptics ask this several times, "What makes your religion correct?"

I've read the all religions lead to god post already http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... gions.html though it's not entirely convincing. I agree with the eternal creator part, however what about all the other religions (extinct or still practiced) that have an eternal creator(s)? The page covered Muslim belief, though not too many others.

On that note, what makes polytheism nonviable?

Thanks

[Gman]

I've heard skeptics ask this several times, "What makes your religion correct?"

I've read the all religions lead to god post already http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... gions.html though it's not entirely convincing. I agree with the eternal creator part, however what about all the other religions (extinct or still practiced) that have an eternal creator(s)? The page covered Muslim belief, though not too many others.

On that note, what makes polytheism nonviable?

Thanks

Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this religious prediction.

[smiley]

I know I am going to get accused of sounding like an atheist again, but. . .

That article is so blitheringly stupid. "God rarely breaks His natural laws. Therefore, I propose that God would also not tolerate having His moral laws broken so easily".

This, this is just amazing.

[Byblos]

I know I am going to get accused of sounding like an atheist again, but. . .

No, we'll reserve that judgment until you actually prove it.

That article is so blitheringly stupid. "God rarely breaks His natural laws. Therefore, I propose that God would also not tolerate having His moral laws broken so easily".

This, this is just amazing.

Please explain why you find it so amazing.

[ninjapotato]

I know I am going to get accused of sounding like an atheist again, but. . .

That article is so blitheringly stupid. "God rarely breaks His natural laws. Therefore, I propose that God would also not tolerate having His moral laws broken so easily".

This, this is just amazing.

I don't see what's wrong with God breaking the rules he sets for his creation. A father can tell his 12 year old son not to drink and still have a glass of wine with his wife without being a "blitheringly stupid" parent. This is so because they are not the same level (at the time anyway)

[smiley]

Please explain why you find it so amazing.

Because it's a textbook leap in logic. There is no correlation between natural and moral laws, and the fact that God does not break the former is absolutely irrelevant as to how tolerant He will be to humans breaking the latter.

The article is full of similar, embarrassing blunders that anyone who does not blindly accept pro-Christianity arguments should be able to spot easily.

I don't see what's wrong with God breaking the rules he sets for his creation. A father can tell his 12 year old son not to drink and still have a glass of wine with his wife without being a "blitheringly stupid" parent. This is so because they are not the same level (at the time anyway)

No, you've missed my point. The charge was not against the way God operates, but about the nature of logic that was implemented in the argument.

[Byblos]

Please explain why you find it so amazing.

Because it's a textbook leap in logic.

I read it more as a writer's opinion but in any case, please provide the logical proof for such a conclusion. I'm not saying I disagree with it necessarily. I'd just like to see on what basis you come to that conclusion.

There is no correlation between natural and moral laws, and the fact that God does not break the former is absolutely irrelevant as to how tolerant He will be to humans breaking the latter.

Do you believe God can change?

The article is full of similar, embarrassing blunders that anyone who does not blindly accept pro-Christianity arguments should be able to spot easily.

Please state them one by one.