Author | Thread |
|
02/09/2007 01:32:02 PM · #101 |
There is a good critique here.
im not sure if you just googled that site, but if you read the part about proving whether there is a God or not, which is the discussion at hand right now...the author of the website you gave me, whoever he is, claims that Strobel and the scientists provide evidence to a creator, but not a christian creator.
I said above that the book is good for deciding whether or not there is a creator, not for faith in a religion. |
|
|
02/09/2007 01:46:24 PM · #102 |
Whether or not there is a god:
Be as scientific about it as you like. Break it down beyond the Big Bang, as far back as you can go. No matter your viewpoints on evolution, intelligent design, god's level of involvement, gender, or favorite flavor of popsicle. It doesn't matter much if you're Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, what have you.Something had to start it all, and that something had to be created by something, etc. and so forth on into retroactive infinity. And that is why, despite being a lapsed Catholic who believes in evolution, I still believe that a god exists, or at the very least existed once upon a time in a galaxy far far away just long enough to kick start the universe.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:00:05 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Rebecca: Something had to start it all, and that something had to be created by something, etc. and so forth on into retroactive infinity. And that is why, despite being a lapsed Catholic who believes in evolution, I still believe that a god exists, or at the very least existed once upon a time in a galaxy far far away just long enough to kick start the universe. |
Hey - I agree with you. The universe undoubtedly started, and so there was most likely a cause. We could describe that cause as a "god", for lack of any better word.
However, that is a very long way from attributing that "god" with any particular quality, or for love or hatred of any particular type of person.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:14:44 PM · #104 |
I am late to this topic and had to scan through all the posts. There have been some very good points on both sides of the coin.
First, my answer to Crayons orig post. IF Jesus wher to come back today as is your description, we would be faced with the same delemma as back then (actually 'trilemma') as to Jesus' claim to be God.
We have only 2 logisal choices...either His claims where true, or they were false.
Lets look at "True":
His claims were true-->He is Lord-->(from here you have 2 alternatives)You can choose to accept or you can choose to deny.
Lets look at "False":
There are 2 alternatives-->
#1: He knew His claims were false-->He made deliberate misrepresentation-->He was a liar-->He was a hypocrite-->He was a demon-->He was a FOOL for He died for it.
#2:He did not know His claims were false-->He was sincerely deluded-->He was a Lunatic.
So, at the end of it all, wewill have to decide was He a Lunatic, a Liar, or the Lord.
For those who have posted that they are 'scientific' and don't believe in God; or say how can we and/or science prove something that happend thousands of years ago...
I used to be of that same thought process also. To me it was like the Mason-Dixon line and you had to be on one side or the other. The fact is, science (of all discaplines)isat the forefront of uncovering evidence of Biblical claims, both Old- and New Testaments.
To your next question, the answer is "yes". I have done the research myself and was shocked to learn that there is indeed backable evidence that boths points to God as well as Biblical claims. My original intent on the research was to dismiss the claims of Christianity, but my study only confirmed what I had set out to negate. In hindsight, I was basing my disbelief on not only old information, but also wrong information.
Here I think is the most important thing regardless of what side of the fence your on...
Believe what you believe...and believe it with all your heart. But, doubt your doubts. Take whatever you know as truth and use it as a foundation while you investigate your doubts.
How often do we do the inverse....believe our doubts and doubt what we believe?
Tap! Tap!...o.k you can wake up now.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:19:41 PM · #105 |
The Bible teaches that the return of Christ will not be subtle... I also believe that, but...
Let's assume pretend that the first time never happened. WHAT IF, he were to come for the first time, today. Would it be different?
I think this would get to the core of Crayon's original post.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 14:20:17.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:20:55 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Being a man of science, my expert opinion would say we are quite far from proving that ID is "infinitely unlikely". Until we can fill all the gaps, there is plenty of room to slip in God. And we currently have some large gaps where God comfortably fits.
Like I said to Sam, you are welcome to prove me wrong. |
Okay!
I think that there are a couple of things that need to be demonstrated - 1) the almost infinite unlikeliness of any particular god and 2) the almost infinite unlikeliness of god as a concept.
Taking the second first, we need to identify what a "god" is - I cannot set out here every permutation, but let's consider god as any one of the "omni"s, and a creator (two common attributes).
In order to be "omni"-something, God would have to be able to reach *everything* at all times. God would have to be bigger than the universe, in order to reach out to all parts of it and then to have some kind of additional capability. In order for God to have such a power, he would have to be more complex than the universe. If we need god to explain the universe or any aspect of it, then it begs the question "who made god?" (he is, after all, more complex than the universe, the lesser complexity of which requires the invocation of god). This is the start of an infinite regression.
So, how about any particular god? There have been thousands of established religions. However, there is no reason why one could not change one word of a holy book (let alone a major concept) and come up with a variation or a new belief system. There are infinite possible belief systems, and objectively therefore, it is almost infinitely improbable that any one of them is correct.
The fact that anyone believes one over another is that they have been exposed (usually as children) to a particular belief system. The fact that all belief systems tend to evoke the same human reaction indicates that humans have a particular reaction to belief systems, rather than the veracity of any one of them.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:25:31 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge: Here I think is the most important thing regardless of what side of the fence your on...
Believe what you believe...and believe it with all your heart. But, doubt your doubts. Take whatever you know as truth and use it as a foundation while you investigate your doubts.
|
What if you are a fundamental Muslim, about to shoot someone because they drew a picture of Mohammed? What if you are a fundamental Christian, about to blow up an abortion clinic? What if you are a fundamental Buddhist, about to refuse to defend yourself?
Or how about, you are just a Christian politician, about to vote against homosexual relationships. Or a sikh about to castigate your son for cutting his hair?
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 14:26:59.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:40:19 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
What if you are a fundamental Muslim, about to shoot someone because they drew a picture of Mohammed? What if you are a fundamental Christian, about to blow up an abortion clinic? What if you are a fundamental Buddhist, about to refuse to defend yourself?
Or how about, you are just a Christian politician, about to vote against homosexual relationships. Or a sikh about to castigate your son for cutting his hair? |
These are all frailties of man...not God.
(except for homosexual unions/marriages) |
|
|
02/09/2007 02:46:41 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Chinabun: heres what i think.........they are psycho
i laugh at all the holy rollers who actually believe in the anti-christ and how the devil is coming to get us. This is like the most insane thing i've ever heard. It scares me that so many people believe and follow something that they dont even know exists. Some people cant even trust their own flesh and blood but yet they'll believe what they read in a book written by people they dont know.
At least with science there's somewhat proof, but to follow a book that was written yeeeeaaarrrrssss ago and to interpret what you think it believes? Gimme a break!
I dont know how we got here (the thought boggles my mind), but if you ask me.....David Blaine is your man LOL. |
Chinabun...you are my new favorite person :)
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:58:32 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Matthew: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Being a man of science, my expert opinion would say we are quite far from proving that ID is "infinitely unlikely". Until we can fill all the gaps, there is plenty of room to slip in God. And we currently have some large gaps where God comfortably fits.
Like I said to Sam, you are welcome to prove me wrong. |
Okay!
I think that there are a couple of things that need to be demonstrated - 1) the almost infinite unlikeliness of any particular god and 2) the almost infinite unlikeliness of god as a concept.
Taking the second first, we need to identify what a "god" is - I cannot set out here every permutation, but let's consider god as any one of the "omni"s, and a creator (two common attributes).
In order to be "omni"-something, God would have to be able to reach *everything* at all times. God would have to be bigger than the universe, in order to reach out to all parts of it and then to have some kind of additional capability. In order for God to have such a power, he would have to be more complex than the universe. If we need god to explain the universe or any aspect of it, then it begs the question "who made god?" (he is, after all, more complex than the universe, the lesser complexity of which requires the invocation of god). This is the start of an infinite regression.
So, how about any particular god? There have been thousands of established religions. However, there is no reason why one could not change one word of a holy book (let alone a major concept) and come up with a variation or a new belief system. There are infinite possible belief systems, and objectively therefore, it is almost infinitely improbable that any one of them is correct.
The fact that anyone believes one over another is that they have been exposed (usually as children) to a particular belief system. The fact that all belief systems tend to evoke the same human reaction indicates that humans have a particular reaction to belief systems, rather than the veracity of any one of them. |
A) This is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
B) Wouldn't your line of reasoning basically rule against any cause for our universe? What caused the singularity of the Big Bang? Wouldn't that require some of the attributes you are saying are impossible? (ie. be outside the universe, be bigger than the universe)
You can really ignore my second point if you just realize your argument here has no bearing on your statement that "the best that science can do is demonstrate the almost infinite odds against it." You need to get the definition of "science" straight in your head. |
|
|
02/09/2007 03:04:31 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by crayon:
if religion wasn't "passed down" by our parents or friends, would you have one?" |
Who knows? I tend to think mine is based on convictions, but I know it is influenced.
Her mom is an atheist (or was). |
Wow, if there was anything that might convince me not to be an athiest, that was it...BUT still being the sceptic that I am, you can't prove that her mom didn't teach her about god :P
Still, I think those are the most amazing paintings I've ever seen.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:22:33 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: B) Wouldn't your line of reasoning basically rule against any cause for our universe? What caused the singularity of the Big Bang? Wouldn't that require some of the attributes you are saying are impossible? (ie. be outside the universe, be bigger than the universe)
You can really ignore my second point if you just realize your argument here has no bearing on your statement that "the best that science can do is demonstrate the almost infinite odds against it." You need to get the definition of "science" straight in your head. |
Hey - I understand what os meant by "science" - and I agree that the first is philosophical (I am not sure how it could be otherwise - so perhaps I agree with you there). However, without some further proof that would skew the odds, my second argument is a statistical argument (which, I believe, comes within the concept of science). If you start with an unfounded belief, then there is no more chance of it being correct than any other unfounded belief - they are all equally unlikely, and since there is an infinite number of possible unfounded beliefs, they are all almost infinitely unlikely.
The big bang theory is different because there is evidence (and reasonably strong evidence at that) as to how it happened. It is not based on unfounded belief. However, unless there is some way to see past it (which seems unlikely), then we will not know what came before/outside it (if that is a meaningful question). God is just as likely as any other supposition.
The almost infinitely complex god complication only really arises if you suppose some element of "omni-something" - which most religions do, but most sciences do not.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:31:53 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by RazorsEdge: Originally posted by Matthew:
What if you are a fundamental Muslim, about to shoot someone because they drew a picture of Mohammed? What if you are a fundamental Christian, about to blow up an abortion clinic? What if you are a fundamental Buddhist, about to refuse to defend yourself?
Or how about, you are just a Christian politician, about to vote against homosexual relationships. Or a sikh about to castigate your son for cutting his hair? |
These are all frailties of man...not God.
(except for homosexual unions/marriages) |
Really? If you honestly and totally believe that god has ordered you to kill unbelievers, why would you hesitate? If you believe that god has condemned gay people, do you suggest that you should trust in your belief and cover any rational doubts?
I would call on people to do the opposite to your suggestion: before acting out of faith, before doing something "for god", consider whether it is something that there is a reason to do it, whether you would like it done to you, whether the instruction or belief is arbitrary or reasoned, remember that everyone around you has the same capacity, but we are all different. Think before you act, use your mind, don't simply fall back on what other people tell you is the "right" way to think.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:35:36 PM · #114 |
If 'God' created the universe, what was there before? Was it an empty void he decided needed filling?
Back to the orginal question, a messenger claiming to be the new Messiah would either get a TV Show or be locked up. In todays climate, it would probably be the former.
Belief cannot be proved, it has no defining points. One persons belief is different from anothers, Christianity is a idea, not a belief, that has been engineered over the years to attract similar thinking people. You could ask one hundred people to explain their beliefs regardless of creed or colour and even if they said they fitted a certain label, their personal beliefs would differ. |
|
|
02/09/2007 03:38:42 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by samhall:
maybe not psycho, but definitely in need of a crutch to lean on and a little crazy |
Based on this logic, you are leaning on a pretty big crutch as well.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:40:21 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by EvanH: [i]im not sure if you just googled that site, |
I have been referred to the author before and googled him then!
Originally posted by EvanH: but if you read the part about proving whether there is a God or not, which is the discussion at hand right now...the author of the website you gave me, whoever he is, claims that Strobel and the scientists provide evidence to a creator, but not a christian creator.
I said above that the book is good for deciding whether or not there is a creator, not for faith in a religion. |
I believe that the quote you may be referring to is
"Of course, even if his case that some intelligence did create the universe is sound, it is unclear which or how many creators are at the helm. "
The main body of the critique does counter the suggestion that there is a case for a designer - this reference is a further argument that even if ID could be demonstrated (which is not the case), this is not evidence for a Christian god (as claimed by the author).
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 15:42:35.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:07:15 PM · #117 |
If 'God' created the universe, what was there before? Was it an empty void he decided needed filling?
A popular question among non-believers.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Therefore, God always was, always is, and always will be.
A concept much too hard to understand by the human mind, but who said we need to understand it! :) |
|
|
02/09/2007 04:10:19 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by EvanH: If 'God' created the universe, what was there before? Was it an empty void he decided needed filling?
A popular question among non-believers.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Therefore, God always was, always is, and always will be.
A concept much too hard to understand by the human mind, but who said we need to understand it! :) |
So what was there before? So much for the Big Bang theory?
But science says Big Bang is a fact? Oh! what to believe? |
|
|
02/09/2007 04:16:43 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by formerlee: So what was there before? So much for the Big Bang theory?
But science says Big Bang is a fact? Oh! what to believe? |
You can look at the echo of the big bang, if that helps you make up your mind. It might not tell what was there before, but it might help you understand why our universe is the way it is.
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:25:41 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Matthew: Originally posted by formerlee: So what was there before? So much for the Big Bang theory?
But science says Big Bang is a fact? Oh! what to believe? |
You can look at the echo of the big bang, if that helps you make up your mind. It might not tell what was there before, but it might help you understand why our universe is the way it is. |
I understand this, but cannot see how this fits with the creation by 'God'. This thread is religion based, so the Big Bang theory can be explained by science, but what about how it fits into religion? Before a 'God' created the universe, what was there/here? A void, nothing, a lot reserved for development(not being clever here)? I am puzzled by claims from the Bible about the creation.
In fact, the Bible shows two creations of Man. In Genesis, it states 'And the Lord created Man in his own likeness.'(not a direct quote), then 6 verses later, 'And God Created Adam.'(again, not a direct quote). Later the children of Adam married the children of Men and they were mighty. All a bit confusing for me, if Adam was the first man created by God. Who was the Lord who created Man? |
|
|
02/09/2007 04:31:16 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by formerlee: Originally posted by EvanH: If 'God' created the universe, what was there before? Was it an empty void he decided needed filling?
A popular question among non-believers.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Therefore, God always was, always is, and always will be.
A concept much too hard to understand by the human mind, but who said we need to understand it! :) |
So what was there before? So much for the Big Bang theory?
But science says Big Bang is a fact? Oh! what to believe? |
I think she's pointing out that the universe does not need to exist for God to exist.
But something for both sides to keep in mind here is that the vast majority of the Bible is meant to be metaphorical, not to be taken literally (which is most of my problem with a lot of the "but it's in the Bible" crowd").
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:31:45 PM · #122 |
So what was there before? So much for the Big Bang theory?
thats a pretty fun thing to think about. pretty hard to grasp the concept of nothing.
Its pretty interesting but in the scheme of things, it really doesn't matter |
|
|
02/09/2007 04:32:32 PM · #123 |
I think she's pointing out that the universe does not need to exist for God to exist.
the "she" you're referring to is indeed a he
haha
:)
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 16:32:50. |
|
|
02/09/2007 04:35:47 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Really? If you honestly and totally believe that god has ordered you to kill unbelievers, why would you hesitate? If you believe that god has condemned gay people, do you suggest that you should trust in your belief and cover any rational doubts?
I would call on people to do the opposite to your suggestion: before acting out of faith, before doing something "for god", consider whether it is something that there is a reason to do it, whether you would like it done to you, whether the instruction or belief is arbitrary or reasoned, remember that everyone around you has the same capacity, but we are all different. Think before you act, use your mind, don't simply fall back on what other people tell you is the "right" way to think. |
Matthew,
You must have misunderstood. I did not say 'cover any rational doubts'. I said 'doubt' your doubts. This infact forces you to look at rational doubt (as you say)and then investigate it...weigh the facts and find out if it is really true, or not. Since truth is objective and not subject, is can be sought and investigated.
Our natural tendency when in doubt is to say "something cannot so, I do not beleive it, so it must not be so, or true." Basically, by 'doubting your doubts' you are in fact second guessing yourself, your current level of understanding, before making desicions without enough (correct) information.
Please do not think "acting out of faith" is the same as "doing something for God". These terms are not necessarily related. But they could be. As a creation of man, religion is flawed, and often a bad thing. I agree that people do horrific things in the name of 'religion', or even God. As I said in my last post, these are the faults of man not of God. |
|
|
02/09/2007 04:37:07 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by formerlee: Originally posted by Matthew: Originally posted by formerlee: So what was there before? So much for the Big Bang theory?
But science says Big Bang is a fact? Oh! what to believe? |
You can look at the echo of the big bang, if that helps you make up your mind. It might not tell what was there before, but it might help you understand why our universe is the way it is. |
I understand this, but cannot see how this fits with the creation by 'God'. This thread is religion based, so the Big Bang theory can be explained by science, but what about how it fits into religion? Before a 'God' created the universe, what was there/here? A void, nothing, a lot reserved for development(not being clever here)? I am puzzled by claims from the Bible about the creation. |
At the time that Genesis was written, no one knew the first thing about modern astronomy. The Big Bang is a modern invention. To the original author, the universe was the world in which he lived and as he understood it, not the entire universe as we know it today. They understood that the world had a beginning, somehow, and the Creation was their explanation for it in lieu of the scientific discoveries yet to come.
And that said, yes, science explains the Big Bang, but only to a point, as you point out. What do you think kicked off the Big Bang? If you have an answer to that, the what started that? And so on. Ultimately, we have to answer that we don't know and at that point we have a few choices: (1) attribute it to a higher power or (2) attribute it to science not yet discovered or (3) attribute it to a combination of the two.
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 07:14:56 PM |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 07:14:57 PM EDT.
|