Page 3 of 4

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:43 am
by Ant
But what would this evidence be? Jesus may have existed, but what good evidence do we have to support that Jesus was who he said he was? Sure, many people followed him, but how can we be sure that the gospel wasn't edited over time?
Personally, I find the words of Jesus enough to know he was extremely intelligent and under God's direct influence. Yes, the gospel and any thing in the Bible may have been edited over time, or changed in translation. To me, this is not a problem, 'cause I believe God influences any changes, to make sure that the information God wants to be there is there.

Many people study "Gnostic texts" and other supposedly more accurate versions and stuff. Often those people think they are "more holier than thou".
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
God doesn't reveal anything to you, no matter how much you study, unless God wants you to know. I've always used the philosophy, that I study only to get a vague knowledge of the Bible, so that if God wants to reveal something to me, I'll be able to accept the information.

However, the Old Testimate does tell of Jesus in several places. Most of them, people won't listen to, but here's one, which predicts that Jesus will form a new religion, and it also predicts the "second coming" of Jesus.
Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isa 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
Gentiles are foreigners or Israelites, so it is saying that someone would come and be a like a flag to the non-Israelites, or form a new religion (Christianity). That someone would be "a root of Jesse", or an ancestor of Jesse. That is Jesus. But... yea, I guess that's another thing which would deep mess of interconnected scripture, and people probably won't listen to anyway. Sort of requires Jesus' father to be Joseph, and people don't want to hear that.

Tony

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:29 am
by jlay
Well, how reliable is the scripture when it comes to Jesus? It doesn't seem hard to twist events and prophecies around so that they fit each other.
I assume you are asking a question. Perhaps you should give that some critical thought. The reliability of the scripture is a subject that has undergone more literary scrutiny than you or I could accomplish on our own. I'll let that stand on it's own. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html

Just a suggestion. Perhaps you should give as much criticism to the arguments against these things. Essentially, nothing you have brought up here is new. Not within the last 1,000 years. That doesn't mean they aren't good questions. But to adopt an objection as your own, one should at least be as critical of the objection since they are taking it as their position.
I think his point was that since the Bible is the book that defines the religion of Christianity, it is inherently a biased source to prove that same religion.
Bias, in and of itself is not wrong. An example of unfair bias is his statement about excluding the bible as evidence. To even suggest the exclusion of the bible as evidence is proposterous.
I'll take a look at it. I'm not relating god's actions to the reliability of the Bible, but I can't say that a god who professes such love and mercy who does such acts doesn't seem a little odd. I just have trouble relating his omnipotence and omniscience to his multiple personalities.
Let me give you two examples and you can tell me if they are reasonable. Do you think it's fair to throw a person in jail for refusing to make his bed? What if the one refusing is a soldier and is acting out of insubordination to his sergeant? At first when just presented with the question, the proposition seems totally unreasonable. and it would be unreasonable to throw a child into jail for refusing to make his bed. But the additional information puts things into perspective.
Next, A family is brutally slaughtered. Is the one who did the slaughter a heinous murderer?
The family was trying to steal some bear cubs from their den. The slaughterer is a mother bear. A mother bear is jealous for her cubs. She was acting perfectly and just within her instincts. The family was trespassing, and although tragic, they got what they deserved.
How foolish I would be to stare into the sun, and then blame it for blinding me. Our God is a consuming fire. God is a God of mercy and love, but this can never be viewed out of the context of His complete nature.
Before I was born, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) took my families land. How could they do such a thing? TVA is certainly not a perfect entity. But the efforts of TVA have prevented flooding, saving lives, $$ and land beyond measure. And provided cheap electricity to millions of people. I could view their actions through my narrow perspective, and refuse to understand the larger purpose.

And so, if we place our faith in attacks on God and bible, and refuse to rightly examine, then we to have poor perspective, and will see the bible just as these critics hope we will.

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:37 am
by Ant
I just thought I'd add something...

If we ask the question, whether or not God exists, is any of the following relevant?
1. Whether or not the information in the Bible is accurate.
2. Whether or not Jesus existed.
3. Whether or not any of the profits did supernatural miracles.
4. If Joseph was Jesus' father or if Jesus was God.

Is any of that relevant to that question? Technically, no. It is relevant to the various belief systems, but not to the question of whether or not God exists.

Some might say that the information was passed down from person to person, and bound to pick up inaccuracies and errors each time. I personally say that information passed from person to person can, if God chooses, become more what God wants it to say over time.

Tony

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:12 pm
by smhjoc
DannyM wrote: What belief are you arguing for? What is a belief? Better yet, what is a true belief?
I'm not really arguing for a belief per se, just trying to ask a few questions. I'm not here trying to show you a specific scientific model that represents how the universe was created from "nothing". I'm not a physicist, and I'm still learning. My only main argument is why I (and non-christians) should leap to christianity. We're still trying to figure out how we got here. Many people here are confused as to why I would leap to a scientific explanation versus a supernatural one, as both would require evidence. I haven't really accepted a specific universe model yet. One of my main problems is that just because we don't know exactly how the universe was created, doesn't mean we should then assume god created it. God, like any scientific theory, needs strong evidence to support it. Now, I have a few choices when it comes to creation. I can believe a god created it, or I can simply not know. By definition, not knowing means I don't believe in a god, which would make me an atheist/agnostic. I don't really know for sure how the universe was created, but I refuse to leap to "god created it" until there is good evidence for it. God is only one creation explanation, and there are many others. I don't necessarily need god's existence to be proven to believe in him/her. But I do need good evidence.

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:18 pm
by DannyM
smhjoc wrote:
DannyM wrote: What belief are you arguing for? What is a belief? Better yet, what is a true belief?
I'm not really arguing for a belief per se, just trying to ask a few questions. I'm not here trying to show you a specific scientific model that represents how the universe was created from "nothing". I'm not a physicist, and I'm still learning. My only main argument is why I (and non-christians) should leap to christianity. We're still trying to figure out how we got here. Many people here are confused as to why I would leap to a scientific explanation versus a supernatural one, as both would require evidence. I haven't really accepted a specific universe model yet. One of my main problems is that just because we don't know exactly how the universe was created, doesn't mean we should then assume god created it. God, like any scientific theory, needs strong evidence to support it. Now, I have a few choices when it comes to creation. I can believe a god created it, or I can simply not know. By definition, not knowing means I don't believe in a god, which would make me an atheist/agnostic. I don't really know for sure how the universe was created, but I refuse to leap to "god created it" until there is good evidence for it. God is only one creation explanation, and there are many others. I don't necessarily need god's existence to be proven to believe in him/her. But I do need good evidence.
Evidence? *Good* evidence? For what? You want meaning? The evidence is astronomical; but somehow you reject it. Why do you reject it? What is a true belief?

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:31 pm
by Katabole
CeT-To wrote:I think you're getting mixed up with the Word of God which is Jesus and the written accounts of God or the written word which is the bible. The bible leads to Christ who is the authority.
Hi Ceto. Yes, I understand the difference between the Incarnate Word and the written word. The Word that is preached makes known the written Word; the Word that is written makes known Christ the Living Word; and Christ makes known God our Father.

I was simply responding to the fact that when someone asks, "tell me what Christ did or tell me what Christ said or how did Christ act or react", how are we supposed to respond except by quoting the Bible which contains the written words of Christ? If we don't included Biblical reference to our answers, then we basing our responses either on human tradition, historical reference or personal opinion. I don't believe Christ wanted us to respond with either of those methods because He claimed that human tradition makes void the word of God, Mark 7:13. Instead, when Christ was tempted by Satan, how did He respond? By quoting scripture. Luke 4:4. When Christ was questioned by the scribes and Pharisees, how did he respond? Either by quoting scripture and/or saying, It is written, haven't you read? The God of the Bible is a God of literacy and expects us to respond to questions regarding our faith using the written Word because then it is not us that is giving an answer but it Christ that is answering through His written word.

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:04 pm
by jlay
I don't really know for sure how the universe was created, but I refuse to leap to "god created it" until there is good evidence for it.
Why is that a leap? Your statement is arbitrary. Prove it is a leap? you can't because it isn't. Your are presupposing that no creator is the default position. It isn't.
There are really only two possibilities for the universe. Purpose or accident. Saying science doesn't have an answer yet, is the science of the gaps argument.

There are a multitude of arguments that defend a purposeful universe and a creator. There is good evidence for it. That doesn't mean you will concede to these arguments about the evidence.

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:59 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
I'm not really arguing for a belief per se, just trying to ask a few questions. I'm not here trying to show you a specific scientific model that represents how the universe was created from "nothing". I'm not a physicist, and I'm still learning. My only main argument is why I (and non-christians) should leap to christianity. We're still trying to figure out how we got here. Many people here are confused as to why I would leap to a scientific explanation versus a supernatural one, as both would require evidence. I haven't really accepted a specific universe model yet. One of my main problems is that just because we don't know exactly how the universe was created, doesn't mean we should then assume god created it. God, like any scientific theory, needs strong evidence to support it. Now, I have a few choices when it comes to creation. I can believe a god created it, or I can simply not know. By definition, not knowing means I don't believe in a god, which would make me an atheist/agnostic. I don't really know for sure how the universe was created, but I refuse to leap to "god created it" until there is good evidence for it. God is only one creation explanation, and there are many others. I don't necessarily need god's existence to be proven to believe in him/her. But I do need good evidence.
If the evidence was so overwhelming that it proved there was a God there would be no need for us to make a choice to accept or reject, we would be robots programmed to "love" God. There is plenty of evidence but like anything even science it must be taken with some faith otherwise you will be sitting on that fence for a very long time and unfortunately it may be a very costly mistake. I think the best place for you to start is to research is the Bible a factual document, on the main site is a good place to start your research, here is a link http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... icity.html i really enjoy the science parts of the Bible :ebiggrin:

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:04 pm
by smhjoc
DannyM wrote: Evidence? *Good* evidence? For what? You want meaning? The evidence is astronomical; but somehow you reject it. Why do you reject it? What is a true belief?
Well I mean, if it's really that astronomical, then I'd convert back to christianity/deism.

See, here's the thing. I know I'm sort of turning this into a debate, but that's not what I came here for. I know many christians. I've read many works by christians, and I know for a fact that you guys are much more intelligent than society tends to generalize. I came here to ask questions, not to debate. I am actually curious about many of the arguments for christianity, because I actually know barely anything when it comes to theology and history. I'm not here to prove you guys wrong, I'm here to see what christianity truly is, and why I should trust in god.

In retrospect, I think it would make more sense to call myself an agnostic. I do have a deep, gut feeling that there is something more than "chance", but I just can't believe something that I believe has no evidence. I'm here to see the evidence. So many people out there have basically unshakable faith, and I'm trying to see what strong evidence there is that makes them that way.

There may indeed be astronomical evidence that I am ignorant about. What do you guys think is the strongest evidence for god/christianity?

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:16 pm
by La Volpe
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html think this page might be perfect for you

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:56 pm
by CeT-To
Katabole wrote:
CeT-To wrote:I think you're getting mixed up with the Word of God which is Jesus and the written accounts of God or the written word which is the bible. The bible leads to Christ who is the authority.
Hi Ceto. Yes, I understand the difference between the Incarnate Word and the written word. The Word that is preached makes known the written Word; the Word that is written makes known Christ the Living Word; and Christ makes known God our Father.

I was simply responding to the fact that when someone asks, "tell me what Christ did or tell me what Christ said or how did Christ act or react", how are we supposed to respond except by quoting the Bible which contains the written words of Christ? If we don't included Biblical reference to our answers, then we basing our responses either on human tradition, historical reference or personal opinion. I don't believe Christ wanted us to respond with either of those methods because He claimed that human tradition makes void the word of God, Mark 7:13. Instead, when Christ was tempted by Satan, how did He respond? By quoting scripture. Luke 4:4. When Christ was questioned by the scribes and Pharisees, how did he respond? Either by quoting scripture and/or saying, It is written, haven't you read? The God of the Bible is a God of literacy and expects us to respond to questions regarding our faith using the written Word because then it is not us that is giving an answer but it Christ that is answering through His written word.
Yeah just wanted to check thats all, it's just ive come to see some people "worship the letter of the law" rather than God himself so that's why i was a bit picky with the wording.

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:09 am
by DannyM
smhjoc wrote:
DannyM wrote: Evidence? *Good* evidence? For what? You want meaning? The evidence is astronomical; but somehow you reject it. Why do you reject it? What is a true belief?
Well I mean, if it's really that astronomical, then I'd convert back to christianity/deism.
It's not about the evidence, or lack of evidence. We all have the same evidence. If God does not exist, there is no foundation for believing anything. How would you justify a belief that God does not exist?

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:12 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ant wrote:I just thought I'd add something...

If we ask the question, whether or not God exists, is any of the following relevant?
1. Whether or not the information in the Bible is accurate.
2. Whether or not Jesus existed.
3. Whether or not any of the profits did supernatural miracles.
4. If Joseph was Jesus' father or if Jesus was God.
To paraphrase a well-known saying*, if you have to ask if God exists, you don't believe in him. This is the position any disbeliever in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will find himself in.
Therefore, you are right: none of the questions you listed are relevant.

FL

*''If you have to ask the price of that yacht, you can't afford it.''

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:07 pm
by narnia4
Its hard to come up with a way to explain this, but let's try this...

What evidence to present? How about... everything. Yep, absolutely everything, from beauty to consciousness to physical laws to logical laws to the existence of morality to the course of history with Christianity right at the center of it, to the universe and how it began. The entire universe is the evidence, we interpret that evidence... the question is what worldview best FITS the evidence that we all have. You haven't seemed real willing to argue positively for atheism, I think part of the reason for that is because you like most atheists realize (perhaps only subconsciously) that there aren't really any arguments FOR atheism... at least none that wouldn't be torn apart in a couple of posts by the folks here. Christianity, on the other hand, I've found it to fit the facts.

So you're really asking a pretty big question that's hard to answer without sending links or summarizing issues. I hope you continue seeking and look at the links that were sent your way. God bless.

Re: A few questions from an atheist.

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:15 am
by kls
smhjoc wrote: There may indeed be astronomical evidence that I am ignorant about. What do you guys think is the strongest evidence for god/christianity?
I personally think that the strongest evidence for God is in the universal models, which basically boil down to two, there are a bunch of sub-theroies in each branch but there are really only two main branches. One is the multiverse and the other is ordered universe. Atheist scientist like Hawkins subscribe to the multiverse model while others subscribe to the ordered single universe model. The very interesting part about the multiverse and what many of the subscribers to the theory try to dodge is that it is wild speculation. Because our universe is born out of the multiverse and has it own physical model nothing can be known about the nature of the multiverse, where our universe is our natural laws the multiverse and it's laws by virtue are supernatural they are extra-dimientional so therefore cannot be tested by our constraints to our 4 dimensions. It's starting to sound a lot like a religion is it not, the funny part is that it is a religion, several of them, many eastern religions subscribe to the multiverse model the only difference from say hinduism and the multiverse theory is one describes it in religious writings while the other cloaks it in scientific terms. In the end they are the same.

So in the multiverse model, every time something could happen, both outcomes happen and fracture reality, how the multiverse deals with this is to shear the two realities and form a new universe. So somewhere out there you are typing this and I am reading it. Taking this further, somewhere out there the sun just blew up and we both died. The interesting part about this, is why do these wildly improbably realities not happen in our reality, I mean it just sheared off and the sun blew up but some how, we remain in the reality that continues on as normal. If you reject the multiverse model then you reject a large portion of other religions, almost all eastern religions. So there goes Hinduism, Buddhism and all of those religions. There are good reasons to reject the multiverse and I will get to them, but for now lets deal with the other Abrahamic religions.

So why is Islam not the correct religion, the most damming evidence is earth centric theory. The Koran proposes a earth based center of the universe, which has been thoroughly refuted. Finally I would say the lack of absolute pacifism is another. Mohammad gave commandment to the Muslims that upon their own accord, they could act in self-defense, we have seen the trappings of allowing men to make decisions of life and death too many times. Leaders create boogy men and then bring whole nations to war and kill innocent people. If you accept that only god can be a pure judge, then you must accept pacifism in totality. I know this is a somewhat weaker argument than earth centric theory because it requires the subject to accept that pacifism is truly a logical truth of the true religion. I do, therefore I see it as proof.


OK so that pretty much leaves Christianity or Judaism as the possibilities for the true religion. If we accept the Jewish text then we accept the prophecies of a coming Messiah, in which we only need to ask did Jesus fulfill those prophecies. Secondly, if god created all mankind, would he only reserve his grace for a select people, who through no actions of their own, are given gods grace? It would not be the mark of a fair god so I feel that it refutes Judaism as the truth. This leaves Christianity, in which we only need to look at the subject. Christ himself, did his teachings and his life embody the purity of a god. What we humans do cannot be attributed to God, for they are the folly of man, we will soil anything we touch with the blight of sin. Many Atheist make this logical mistake, they look at religion and blame Jesus for the shortcomings of man. So it really comes down to does Jesus measure up.

So now lets jump back to the Multiverse and lets use science. One of the basic teachings in the citadels of science is Occam's Razor which states
simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones
. So in an ordered universe that we can accurate predict phenomenon, is it simpler to assume that we are born out of a chaotic multiverse, that deals with fragmented reality, by playing out every possible outcome, yet some how our reality that we stay in timeline on the chaos never seems to seep in? Gravity never spins the earth backwards even though it is a possibility. Or using Occam's razor, is the simpler solution, that the order of the universe arose from a design? If we chose the latter then we can look for some clues, if we are made in god's image then we should have the capacity to understand how it was built, there should be some core building blocks, and their should be some rules that maintain the system. Armed with this knowledge we can start to look for the signatures of god.

We can assume that god would have a language, I propose that it is mathematics, they are pure and every idea, every concept, everything in existence can be described with mathematics. Further, concepts that don't exist in nature can be described via mathematics. Such as -1 you cannot find it in nature, yet we build amazing things based on the idea that negative numbers exist. We have faith that negative numbers as a concept can exist, because there is no natural proof of their existence. So the question becomes did humans invent math or did we discover math, if it was discovered, then it is a strong argument for god.

Humans where made in god image, if we take this as a truth, then we should be able to invent things such as the universe. We should be able to take a concept, and idea and turn it into something real and physical. I cite the internet as an example, it is a network of information, computers and people that transfer information and ideas among themselves. Real world and conceptual items are always being created on the internet. To the extent that we are now starting to shape the physical world with it. I just used an application the other day on my phone that places virtual objects on a latitude and longitude. If you go to that spot, open your camera on the phone and look around you will find this virtual item, embedded in the real world. Is it real, that is all perspective, it is just information, but yet it is a real creation, and exist via real information. I always tell people it would scare you if you understood reality enough to know that we are not very much different that that virtual item embedded in the "real world". Science has discovered that our universe is best described as a system of information and information processing. The more you look at the universe the more it becomes apparent that it is very much like a simulation or though. The real is not as real as any of us would like to believe. We experience reality through 4 dimensions which is woefully inadequate to understand the true nature of the universe.

DNA is a strong argument for god, again basic building blocks in which all things are created. A system of logic and design reused to develop many variations. The fact that we can discover and manipulate it again leads to our design being like that of gods. The fact that we can manipulate the core building blocks, gives credence to the idea that it was designed in the first place. The fact that we can recognize the patterns and modify them lends credibility to the fact that we where created in his image. Which becomes recursive, if we where created in his image then his image and therefore he exist.

Finally the multiverse itself, if all possibilities exist, then there is a universe in which god exist, god being the great I am, has no master and is subservient to no laws. If he exists in a reality on the multiverse he would by his nature have to exist above the multiverse. It is a problem of recursion that has to be possible yet is impossible.

FYI, I was an agnostic and and very arrogant, not because I was dismissive to other peoples views I actually rather enjoyed talking about the idea of religion. I was arrogant because I fashioned myself a god. By feeling that I had to fix things because there was no god, I arrogantly believed that I could. I did not give things over to god that are his will, for if their is no god then there is only my will and therefore I must do my will. In acting for ones own will, one is being arrogant, one believes themselves to be a god and the only source that can fix problems. It is futile and arrogant to believe that we can fix the corruptions of man, these are the trappings of Satan because we make no room for god. We arrogantly believe that we will fix the problems of humanity when all evidence is to the contrary. Humanity is not getting better, it is getting worse and every technical advancement makes it that much worse the last 200 years have been the darkest in human history and by all measures are getting worse daily. The worst part about my arrogance and the arrogance of people like me is that by believing that we are able to fix it without god, our will is done and not gods will, thereby furthering the problems. It is the worst trappings in the world because, the arrogance is lead by a desire to help humanity via our own efforts, we feel that we are doing good according to man. But with god we see that mans standards are a false and fallen standard.