Let me reiterate something. God, as we have agreed, is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. therefore infinite. We as man can try to rationalize, try to explain God, but that's defeating the purpose of God as an infinite. We cannot put god in a box or under a microscope because God does not need rationalization for he is beyond it.
If you wish to say, believers (Religious or non-religious), acknowledge that there is a God because of our mere existence and the concept that there is something more to us,
What evidence do you have that there is something more to us?
I did not say it was solved, we HAVE STOPPED asking and GUESSING, the various religions and the various schools of thought have these GUESSES THAT THEY STICK TO, I'm not saying who is right, EVEN THOUGH I STUDY JESUS BUT NOT BUDDHA AND HAVE PRESUPPOSED A GOD, or wrong nor who should be believed.
I have fixed your post in lieu of evidence
What force created/made this world? If you believe in the big bang theory, that matter supercompressed by a force birthing the universe, we would ask, who or what put the matter there in the first place and who or what caused the force in the first place?
you are;
a/ presupposing that a force did create the universe
b/ and even if you could propose a cause, what caused that cause?
We can have a concept of what is perfect, what the infinite and the omniscient is, yet we do not have this on our plane of existence. Take a look at the structure of the world, there is some logic and rational into it that science and man can understand, but what brought forth its complexities int he first place? What designed it? Even in evolution, what force of nature dictated that we should get thumbs and giraffe's necks should elongate to reach for trees.
again you are presupposing that there was designer, a creator, a rational, logic. none of this is needed - and here is why. If you say 'but what could make all the complexities of earth" - all i have to say is "what made all the complexities of, the apparently more complex (infinite - that we cannot understand) God"
your answer, answers nothing. "oh but God is infinite" - maybe the universe is too?
really? are you serious? have you even looked at these arguments in detail at all?
I suggest you look up the following youtube channels and start learning;
Aronra
Thunderf00t
CDK007
Potholer54
and then do a youtube search on Ken Miller Creationism - he is a catholic who smashed that silly 'irreducibly complex' thing to pieces.
Believing in God itself is more of a matter of trust. As you said if there is not enough proof of that it is there, it does not mean it does not exist.
and no reason to think that God does exist either
If you wish to not believe in god because you think that there is not enough proof he exists, fine by me, that is your call. For me, there is proof out there and I believe that there is a God.
then share it, share the good news! What is this "proof" - which is the wrong word by the way....
Proof is mathematical term, it is not used in scientific enquiry. Show me your EVIDENCE.
Would you apply the same low standarad of 'proof' (evidence) to anything else? Like say - a court room? what standard of 'proof' do you require? (civil court) "on the balance of probabilities" or criminal court "beyond a reasonable doubt" - heres another hint - christianity would not get past a jury on either standard, and YOU KNOW IT
With this, I'm off. Good luck to you and your endeavors. I enjoyed this little ramble in its own little way.
- DNC
you got crushed. Thats why you are leaving. Good luck.
But to explain birth of an universe, you will always have to deal with infinite regress. If you cannot explain it away, you cannot explain big bang theory. Likewise, you cannot explain away god, and since there is zero evidence against it or for it, you have to, according to your own words earlier in this thread, accept that there is exactly a 50% chance of god existing.
Shcrödinger's Cat on galactic scale, if you will.
Heck, just read the article you linked to. The part from Aristotle. Yeah, that one. Go ahead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
But to explain birth of an universe, you will always have to deal with infinite regress. If you cannot explain it away, you cannot explain big bang theory. Likewise, you cannot explain away god, and since there is zero evidence against it or for it, you have to, according to your own words earlier in this thread, accept that there is exactly a 50% chance of god existing.
Shcrödinger's Cat on galactic scale, if you will.
Heck, just read the article you linked to. The part from Aristotle. Yeah, that one. Go ahead.
Does this mean that there is a 50% chance that unicorns exist? You can neither prove nor disprove their existence.
It is perfectly acceptable in science to say 'we dont know'. It is far better practice to say 'we cant prove it, so we will say we dont know. But we will try and find out in time'. This does not make it acceptable to fills the voids of our knowledge with whatever fantasy most appeals to you.
ths point is more that he just accepts the answers he is given. A rebuttle is the chance to counter-argue. He may have given an atheist the initial statements - but no did not give that atheist the chance to rebut his critics - who were given the chance to rebut him. You honestly cant see how if he had have gone to 8 christians - and then one atheist last - that the advantage of going last is overwhleming? and in strobels case 7 - 1.
You know really Strobels entire book was just one big series of rebuttals to atheist assertations as to why God doesn't exist. I.E., God must be evil if he allows suffering, God must be evil because bad things happen to good people, God must be heartless if those who do not know of Jesus but live a good life go to hell anyway ect. ect. ect.
If anything A Case For Faith presents the atheist point of view at the beginning of every chapter, explaining why it is important to answer the atheistic question, and then goes to a Christian or Philosophical expert to find the answers he needs.
Would you have preferred if he provided rebuttals to his rebuttals, only to have to go back to more experts to rebut the rebutting of their rebuttals?
Perhaps he could of done what some other Theologians have done and wrote a joint venture with an atheist where they debate chapter after chapter providing counter points. I find those reads to be entertaining and informative, where the reader is left to decide who's arguments were best. But that wasn't the point of the book. The book was meant to give Christians answers to some of Atheists toughest questions, and he delivers. Have you actually read the book or just the rebuttals to the book?
right, this is the point again - that he wasn't interested in the truth - only in re-enforcing his faith. He decided what was true - then sought eidence - not allowing the evidence to tell him what was true. He put the cart before the horse.
I'd say he was definitely interested in truth, considering he went to multiple philosophers and collegiate professors in order to find answers.
Arguments should stand on their own two feet. regardless of persuasiveness, how convincing they are, and their presentation.
Do you believe that the answers provided in A Case For Faith are not sufficient to the questions? Or is your soul issue with the fact that you didn't get to see more atheist rebuttals?
Which leads us to this... why even keep the faith?
Because faith helps us know that everything happens for a reason, that we can be certain through faith and no matter how hard life is, everything will be o.k. in the end. Is that such a bad train of thought?
have you not ever wondered why you think Faith is a good thing in the first place?
Of course, I created this thread on the premise that my faith is being challenged, did I not?
Its circular.
Why is faith good - the bible said so
but u need faith to believe in the bible
Not entirely true. Faith is good because it feels good to have a positive outlook. To have faith that all things are taken care of in time so long as we work hard at it. You don't need the Bible to tell you that having faith is a good thing. I have faith that I will wake up this morning still alive to live another day. I have faith that I will enjoy my day tomorrow as it is Friday Night Magic and I get to hang out with friends and play cards that we all enjoy. I have faith that I will be one step closer in my journey to finding the truth about God.
Are these examples of faith rooted in the Bible? No. But they are rooted in the belief that someone is watching over me. It doesn't have to be the God of the Bible, The Koran, The Torah or any other texts. It's just a belief that there is something greater than myself. I just don't know what it is yet.
But yes, you do need a great amount of faith to believe in the Bible. But like I said, it's not circle. You need faith to believe what the Bible says is true. But you do not have Faith simply because the Bible tells you to.
I bought and read the first few chapters of The Case For Christ and skimmed his other books at the library. I can't help but feel that Strobel is a deceptive author. Yes, Kraken is absolutely right that books typically only present one side or viewpoint, but this isn't what Strobel was doing in The Case For Christ. Instead he was acting as though both sides were being represented by pretending to argue for the non-Christian position. He was posing weak-ass questions and objections to the points the Christian scholars would make, not addressing any objections I would've actually made myself. Then he would go on to use these things as foundations to build up the case for Christ. I frequently found myself saying out loud "But no one's saying that!" as I read the book and saw Strobel play the role of a non-Christian. I had a red pen to write my objections in the margins as I read the book to see what Christian responses would be to actual objections. I eventually quit reading the book since Strobel wasn't posing any real objections that anyone would make to his scholars. I'd have to research the objections on my own.
It is very frustrating to see a position misrepresented in the manner that Strobel did. He should've just presented his facts and not acted as though objections were being addressed. He presented the book as though it was going to pose the really hard questions to Christian scholars to see how much evidence there is for Jesus as Christ. It was made out to be a hard-nosed investigation into the truth of Jesus. That is not at all what it was. It was a Christian pretending to be an atheist agreeing with the Christian scholars he talks to. It also leans very heavily on the authority of the Christian scholars to make the reader believe what they say. Strobel takes a couple pages before the beginning of each chapter with a new scholar to present the atmosphere of how scholarly and well-educated the person is. I found it very strange to see this kind of mood-setting in a scholarly work.
If Strobel really wanted to have a book that posed the hard questions to see how much evidence there truly is for Jesus as Christ, he should've done one of two things:
1. Have a non-Christian journalist/lawyer go out and ask Christian scholars the hard questions and publish their discussion.
2. Have Strobel go out and probe non-Christian scholars with penetrating questions about why they think Jesus is not the Christ, then publish their discussions.
Reading The Case For Christ is about as worthwhile as it would be to read a book by Richard Dawkins in which he goes around pretending to be a Christian, asking lame questions to other atheistic scholars after spending pages describing how smart they are and how intellectual their offices look. Seriously, imagine reading that book and then Dawkins asking the reader to consider whether Christianity is real after having an atheist-only discussion the topic! Is that fair? But Dawkins was trying to show Christianity true the whole time (even though we only ever heard reasons to dismiss it), shouldn't that mean it's fair? That's a pretty good mirror image of The Case For Christ. If someone is interested in a biased position presented as though it isn't, then read Strobel. If one is interested in honesty, read up on his opponents' viewpoint and then read Strobel. Then you'll be able to make a better call about how well the opposite arguments are actually being addressed. For The Case For Christ I'd recommend The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. Read this first, then read Strobel's book and you'll be able to see what I'm talking about when I say that he avoids the actual objections a non-Christian would make, and instead presents objections that his scholars can address.
As for The Case For Faith, as I said I flipped through it at the library. It was actually the book of his I was most interested in. I could see from what I read that it didn't actually address my issues with the concept of the Christian God. I don't remember the specifics, but reading what Kraken wrote about the book helped jog my memory. Non-believers aren't trying to say that God is evil because _____. We're trying to say that "any suffering" and "a compassionate being that can do anything" cannot coexist. We're saying that this is a logical impossibility. We're not saying that God is evil. We're not saying that!! Yet that is what Strobel talked about, IIRC. Then he acted as though the objection had been countered. (Or rather he asks the reader to think about whether the objection had been countered after having misrepresented it, just like he did in The Case For Christ)
Quite frankly, like Kraken said, my favorites are the back-and-forth discussions on a topic like this. That way each side gets to have its say and address the objections brought against it for itself. I've seen some good debates on youtube doing this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
right. So we agree everything is god's choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
then you say. But god is above rationalisation! Um, LOL, this is just an argument from ignorance, so we learn nothing from it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
What evidence do you have that there is something more to us?
I have fixed your post in lieu of evidence
you are;
a/ presupposing that a force did create the universe
b/ and even if you could propose a cause, what caused that cause?
this is an infinite regress and tells us nothing
again you are presupposing that there was designer, a creator, a rational, logic. none of this is needed - and here is why. If you say 'but what could make all the complexities of earth" - all i have to say is "what made all the complexities of, the apparently more complex (infinite - that we cannot understand) God"
your answer, answers nothing. "oh but God is infinite" - maybe the universe is too?
i dont know, neither do you
really? are you serious? have you even looked at these arguments in detail at all?
I suggest you look up the following youtube channels and start learning;
Aronra
Thunderf00t
CDK007
Potholer54
and then do a youtube search on Ken Miller Creationism - he is a catholic who smashed that silly 'irreducibly complex' thing to pieces.
and no reason to think that God does exist either
then share it, share the good news! What is this "proof" - which is the wrong word by the way....
Proof is mathematical term, it is not used in scientific enquiry. Show me your EVIDENCE.
Would you apply the same low standarad of 'proof' (evidence) to anything else? Like say - a court room? what standard of 'proof' do you require? (civil court) "on the balance of probabilities" or criminal court "beyond a reasonable doubt" - heres another hint - christianity would not get past a jury on either standard, and YOU KNOW IT
you got crushed. Thats why you are leaving. Good luck.
But to explain birth of an universe, you will always have to deal with infinite regress. If you cannot explain it away, you cannot explain big bang theory. Likewise, you cannot explain away god, and since there is zero evidence against it or for it, you have to, according to your own words earlier in this thread, accept that there is exactly a 50% chance of god existing.
Shcrödinger's Cat on galactic scale, if you will.
Heck, just read the article you linked to. The part from Aristotle. Yeah, that one. Go ahead.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Does this mean that there is a 50% chance that unicorns exist? You can neither prove nor disprove their existence.
It is perfectly acceptable in science to say 'we dont know'. It is far better practice to say 'we cant prove it, so we will say we dont know. But we will try and find out in time'. This does not make it acceptable to fills the voids of our knowledge with whatever fantasy most appeals to you.
You know really Strobels entire book was just one big series of rebuttals to atheist assertations as to why God doesn't exist. I.E., God must be evil if he allows suffering, God must be evil because bad things happen to good people, God must be heartless if those who do not know of Jesus but live a good life go to hell anyway ect. ect. ect.
If anything A Case For Faith presents the atheist point of view at the beginning of every chapter, explaining why it is important to answer the atheistic question, and then goes to a Christian or Philosophical expert to find the answers he needs.
Would you have preferred if he provided rebuttals to his rebuttals, only to have to go back to more experts to rebut the rebutting of their rebuttals?
Perhaps he could of done what some other Theologians have done and wrote a joint venture with an atheist where they debate chapter after chapter providing counter points. I find those reads to be entertaining and informative, where the reader is left to decide who's arguments were best. But that wasn't the point of the book. The book was meant to give Christians answers to some of Atheists toughest questions, and he delivers. Have you actually read the book or just the rebuttals to the book?
I'd say he was definitely interested in truth, considering he went to multiple philosophers and collegiate professors in order to find answers.
Do you believe that the answers provided in A Case For Faith are not sufficient to the questions? Or is your soul issue with the fact that you didn't get to see more atheist rebuttals?
Because faith helps us know that everything happens for a reason, that we can be certain through faith and no matter how hard life is, everything will be o.k. in the end. Is that such a bad train of thought?
Of course, I created this thread on the premise that my faith is being challenged, did I not?
Not entirely true. Faith is good because it feels good to have a positive outlook. To have faith that all things are taken care of in time so long as we work hard at it. You don't need the Bible to tell you that having faith is a good thing. I have faith that I will wake up this morning still alive to live another day. I have faith that I will enjoy my day tomorrow as it is Friday Night Magic and I get to hang out with friends and play cards that we all enjoy. I have faith that I will be one step closer in my journey to finding the truth about God.
Are these examples of faith rooted in the Bible? No. But they are rooted in the belief that someone is watching over me. It doesn't have to be the God of the Bible, The Koran, The Torah or any other texts. It's just a belief that there is something greater than myself. I just don't know what it is yet.
But yes, you do need a great amount of faith to believe in the Bible. But like I said, it's not circle. You need faith to believe what the Bible says is true. But you do not have Faith simply because the Bible tells you to.
I bought and read the first few chapters of The Case For Christ and skimmed his other books at the library. I can't help but feel that Strobel is a deceptive author. Yes, Kraken is absolutely right that books typically only present one side or viewpoint, but this isn't what Strobel was doing in The Case For Christ. Instead he was acting as though both sides were being represented by pretending to argue for the non-Christian position. He was posing weak-ass questions and objections to the points the Christian scholars would make, not addressing any objections I would've actually made myself. Then he would go on to use these things as foundations to build up the case for Christ. I frequently found myself saying out loud "But no one's saying that!" as I read the book and saw Strobel play the role of a non-Christian. I had a red pen to write my objections in the margins as I read the book to see what Christian responses would be to actual objections. I eventually quit reading the book since Strobel wasn't posing any real objections that anyone would make to his scholars. I'd have to research the objections on my own.
It is very frustrating to see a position misrepresented in the manner that Strobel did. He should've just presented his facts and not acted as though objections were being addressed. He presented the book as though it was going to pose the really hard questions to Christian scholars to see how much evidence there is for Jesus as Christ. It was made out to be a hard-nosed investigation into the truth of Jesus. That is not at all what it was. It was a Christian pretending to be an atheist agreeing with the Christian scholars he talks to. It also leans very heavily on the authority of the Christian scholars to make the reader believe what they say. Strobel takes a couple pages before the beginning of each chapter with a new scholar to present the atmosphere of how scholarly and well-educated the person is. I found it very strange to see this kind of mood-setting in a scholarly work.
If Strobel really wanted to have a book that posed the hard questions to see how much evidence there truly is for Jesus as Christ, he should've done one of two things:
1. Have a non-Christian journalist/lawyer go out and ask Christian scholars the hard questions and publish their discussion.
2. Have Strobel go out and probe non-Christian scholars with penetrating questions about why they think Jesus is not the Christ, then publish their discussions.
Reading The Case For Christ is about as worthwhile as it would be to read a book by Richard Dawkins in which he goes around pretending to be a Christian, asking lame questions to other atheistic scholars after spending pages describing how smart they are and how intellectual their offices look. Seriously, imagine reading that book and then Dawkins asking the reader to consider whether Christianity is real after having an atheist-only discussion the topic! Is that fair? But Dawkins was trying to show Christianity true the whole time (even though we only ever heard reasons to dismiss it), shouldn't that mean it's fair? That's a pretty good mirror image of The Case For Christ. If someone is interested in a biased position presented as though it isn't, then read Strobel. If one is interested in honesty, read up on his opponents' viewpoint and then read Strobel. Then you'll be able to make a better call about how well the opposite arguments are actually being addressed. For The Case For Christ I'd recommend The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. Read this first, then read Strobel's book and you'll be able to see what I'm talking about when I say that he avoids the actual objections a non-Christian would make, and instead presents objections that his scholars can address.
As for The Case For Faith, as I said I flipped through it at the library. It was actually the book of his I was most interested in. I could see from what I read that it didn't actually address my issues with the concept of the Christian God. I don't remember the specifics, but reading what Kraken wrote about the book helped jog my memory. Non-believers aren't trying to say that God is evil because _____. We're trying to say that "any suffering" and "a compassionate being that can do anything" cannot coexist. We're saying that this is a logical impossibility. We're not saying that God is evil. We're not saying that!! Yet that is what Strobel talked about, IIRC. Then he acted as though the objection had been countered. (Or rather he asks the reader to think about whether the objection had been countered after having misrepresented it, just like he did in The Case For Christ)
Quite frankly, like Kraken said, my favorites are the back-and-forth discussions on a topic like this. That way each side gets to have its say and address the objections brought against it for itself. I've seen some good debates on youtube doing this.