Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why Do You Remain A Christian?


Antlerman

Recommended Posts

I'd like to play devil's advocate here (and put out there some of the issues I've been struggling with).

 

 

Firstly Antlerman made the point that the impression (great distinction between 'impression' and 'evidence' BTW) of God derived from the perfection/near-perfection of the universe, i.e. the argument from design, is akin to "Bob in Illinois thanking God for winning a lottery draw, saying “the odds were too great”. However I feel this is somewhat an over-simplification (though I acknowledge it was meant to only be an analogy). I think that a better analogy would be Bob from Illinois winning lotto 1000 times in a row. In fact I believe the odds of us evolving from a single cell to homo sapiens has been calculated to be equal to that of blind men lined up from Earth to the Sun solving a Rubik's cube at the same time.

I'm really tired and probably shouldn't be attempting this right now, but briefly... No it's not like winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. That's a false analogy. All it takes is the right conditions for life to happen - once. We are not a separate life on this planet, really. We are simply one animal that has evolved into many forms. Life happened only once on this planet. One animal emerged, and we are all children of that one animal.

 

Now what is being done is looking at what we are in our current form and saying after the fact, 'What were the odds of that!" I should clarify that it's not an entirely random process. What emerges does follow certain rules and behaviors, so there is some predictability possible. But again, you're saying what are the odds that homo sapiens coming from a single cell is not a proper way to look at it. (first we didn't come from a single cell, we came from a bunch of single cells forming together into the first animal life form). But let's say I throw 100,000 nuts and bolts into the air, then we look at the result on the ground and ask the question, "What are the odds it forming into that arrangement?" That's a silly question to ask, and somehow layers on top of it that that shape was the exact shape intended. Who says that? We are in the form we are in, because it's the form, that formed. Period.

 

Again, life only happened once, and the rest is just variations on a theme. We are all children of Eve, the holy sponge in the garden of the sea.

 

We know from modern day science that mutations which either have a neutral effect or rob the genome of information are infinitely greater than that of any mutation that results in a net gain of information.

I know this argument. It's bogus. I'd have to find the reference, but over on infidels someone addresses this.

 

In fact when I was doing an ANHB unit at university, the closest example we had to a 'positive mutation', as it were, was homozygous sickle cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis. I believe that homozygous sickle cell anaemia reduces the oxygen-capacity of haemoglobin without fatal consequences; thus when people in Sub-Sahara Africa contract it, it reduces their risk of contracting malaria and thus they have a greater average life-span. On those facts, it doesn't seem a big step to accept that God was somehow required as a guiding force.

This also sounds familiar, but I'd have to reference it later when I'm more awake. But as just a brief thought, aren't we looking deeper, and further every year to find evidence of the supernatural in nature? I mean the gaps for God to be seen in are moving further and further back, whereas years ago we could see the evidence of God everywhere, such as being unable to understand where lightning came from?

 

Why should God be so "hidden", if we are supposed to somehow be able to see him so clearly in nature? This just sounds like another exercise of the same thing that saw him in the mysteries of nature before. We always like to fill mysterys with the face of the ultimate mysterious - God. This is called the God of the Gaps.

 

Later...

 

P.S. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to earth. We are not in a closed system. The sun provides an influx of energy constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    296

  • the stranger

    237

  • JayL

    226

  • Citsonga

    176

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

We know from modern day science that mutations which either have a neutral effect or rob the genome of information are infinitely greater than that of any mutation that results in a net gain of information.

I know this argument. It's bogus. I'd have to find the reference, but over on infidels someone addresses this.

Correct. It's a bogus argument. We just had a thread a few days ago with the news of the bacteria that had evolved, under observation, in a lab, to more complex genetic code.

 

DNA replication is only almost a perfect copy machine. It fails in several ways, and one of the copy errors is that it copies duplicates of genes at times. Those genes if inherited, can later mutate separately and go separate paths.

 

Also, bacteria that become resistant to drugs, evolve - in the view from the bacteria - to a positive net gain, it can reproduce more and survive. Of some reason, the Creationist argument is only based on "mutation beneficial for humans." So the only way a Creationist could see a positive mutation is if humans became some form of X-Men. (Which is rubbish.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guys. I'll respond later as I have an exam to study for, but I may do so in a new thread. I don't want to de-rail this one. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a great analogy. However I see one major problem with it. Evolution goes against, not with the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. things move from greater to lesser complexity; to higher entropy). Thus it works in spite of nature, not because of it.

The second law of thermodynamics specifies as a condition that no energy be added to a system. Living creatures constantly add energy in the form of food, hence increased complexity that conforms to know physical laws. No miracles needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a great analogy. However I see one major problem with it. Evolution goes against, not with the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. things move from greater to lesser complexity; to higher entropy). Thus it works in spite of nature, not because of it.

The second law of thermodynamics specifies as a condition that no energy be added to a system. Living creatures constantly add energy in the form of food, hence increased complexity that conforms to know physical laws. No miracles needed.

And energy is added to the system by following agents:

 

1. Sun, heat and radiation

 

2. Earth is rotating, creating winds etc

 

3. Gravity, a power force adding to the complexity of the system

 

4. Moon's gravity creating tides

 

5. Space dust and meteorites adding to the matter

 

and more...

 

Evolution doesn't happen within a closed box, but is constantly pushed forward because of the immense amount of energy and forces that acts upon it.

 

It's like a car, the engine is all these external forces that propels it, while the car is evolution itself. It moves forward, not by its own force, but by the additional power outside it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you feel that way.

I'm really confused as to why you would think that.

 

I've seen you use the first phrase a couple of times. 1. Why would you be sorry? 2. Why do you care? 3. What I said had nothing to do with emotion or feeling, why do you assume it did?

 

To respond to the second statement, I don't know you. I was making an observation based on experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you feel that way.

I'm really confused as to why you would think that.

 

I've seen you use the first phrase a couple of times. 1. Why would you be sorry? 2. Why do you care? 3. What I said had nothing to do with emotion or feeling, why do you assume it did?

 

To respond to the second statement, I don't know you. I was making an observation based on experience.

I guess the word "sorry" is wrong. I do not wish to give the impression, may be a better choice of words. And as you stated, you do not know me, so why lump me into a category with others, until you do know me? Experience isn't a good enough reason for you to say what you did. I have had a bad experience with people, does that make them all the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution goes against, not with the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. things move from greater to lesser complexity; to higher entropy).

 

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

 

 

entropy is measured in "units of heat energy per unit of tempertaure", for example - calories/degree Kelvin

in the laws of thermodynamics, increased entropy is an increase in molecular randomness.

 

Take for example water. It has 3 states: solid, liquid and gas forms. Each subsequent state from solid to gas moves from lower to higher entropy.

 

Entropy is not correlated to "complexity"' - randomness in the molecular sense, yes.

 

If say, your isloated system is an enclosed room at 25 degrees celsius (room temp) with 5 large blocks of ice sitting on the ground, this would not be considered a system that is in equilibrium. The room is much to warm for the ice to remain in solid form, and thus heat energy would be transferred to the water molecules (organized in an icy crystalline structure). As the ice melts, an increase in entropy or molecular randomness would occur, until equilibrium is reach and no more "work" can be done. Depending on how much moisture the air in the room could aborb, the water could further evaporate into a gaseous form to reach equilibrium.

 

But lets say you have an isolated system that is not at equilibrium, this time a warm room is full of water with disolved limestone. As entropy increases (water converting into a gaseous form) and the water evporates, limestone deposits are left behind forming crystalline structures. Say, for some reason the water falls from the ceiling of the room then as entropy in the room increases, formations similar to stalagmites and stalagtites would develop.

While as humans we would most likely say, "that's greater complexity", from the standpoint of chemistry and entropy, overall molecular randomness has increased in the system until it reaches equilibrium.

 

The problem with the common misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics has a lot to do with the misunderstanding of entropy.

Like the issue with "theory" and "scientific theory", colloquial English uses of "entropy" and "complexity" are confused.

 

Higher states of entropy are not the same as what is perceived by humans as "more/less complexity"

 

 

And as stated before, Earth is not an isolated system since energy is exchanged with our nearest star, the sun, among other things.

Being our most important source of energy, if we were to make Earth an isolated system and removed the sun, the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict that as molecular randomness increases, life as we know it would end. Say the isolated system of our planet includes the void of space that surrounds us. As the planet earth has a lower entropy, heat would quickly escape from the planet into outer space which measure near zero Kelvin in temperature in order to create an equilibrium in the system.

 

 

The laws of thermodynamics are used as models to simulate thermodynamic systems in order to do all sorts of calculations and math that is beyond me, not as a catch all to explain every system out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc.

 

I highly recommend the book Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith

for a layperson's primer to the current theory, research and evidence on how the universe as we know it today came to be. It's quite good although I found it would have been helpful to have included more math and stuff such as the equations for Gravitional force between 2 masses, etc which would have really help me see what they were talking about at times.

Probably the most depressing conclusion from the book is that the universe is truly expanding at a rapid rate and as the galaxies fly apart from each other, eventually we will truly be all alone with no chance of every finding out if there's anything out there in those other galaxies and stars.

 

If you would like to better understand evolution, I highly recommend Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene " as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc.

 

I highly recommend the book Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith

for a layperson's primer to the current theory, research and evidence on how the universe as we know it today came to be. It's quite good although I found it would have been helpful to have included more math and stuff such as the equations for Gravitional force between 2 masses, etc which would have really help me see what they were talking about at times.

Probably the most depressing conclusion from the book is that the universe is truly expanding at a rapid rate and as the galaxies fly apart from each other, eventually we will truly be all alone with no chance of every finding out if there's anything out there in those other galaxies and stars.

 

If you would like to better understand evolution, I highly recommend Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene " as well.

See, everyone! You were wrong! God does exist, and has spoken to me!. :eek: (Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, everyone! You were wrong! God does exist, and has spoken to me!. :eek: (Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out)

Yes, we have our own personal dot-god on Ex-C. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
With respect to TexasFreethinker's post in the Lion's Den, I'm starting a part 2 version of his question which spawned probably the most read thread on this site with over 41,150 views, and 1,576 responses on 79 pages. It was finally closed due to sheer size, but it seems a question that obviously continued to spark many discussions from many responders. Therefore I'm reposting his original question here in the Colosseum to re-open the question for continued responses and discussions.

 

TexasFreethinker's original question:

 

In the spirit of understanding (rather than debating), I'd like to ask another question of the Christians who are members or guests of this site.

 

Why are you still a Christian, in spite of the evidence and logic to the contrary that's been presented here?

 

What I'm trying to understand is what maintains your belief - on what basis do you continue to believe?

 

If you take a close look at why you are a believer does it come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, do you think you are hearing directly from your god, etc? I think most Christians would have to admit that there are strong reasons to disbelieve, but there must be something that is keeping you on the side of belief. What is that, exactly?

 

I'm hoping for answers more explicit than "I have faith". I'm interested in why you have faith.

 

For me, it's a combination of logic, personal experiences, and the evidence. Sure, there's a lot of evidence that can disprove Christianity, if you don't look at all the other evidence out there, or you get the wrong idea from that evidence. Even the smartest people in this world can get so caught up with details that they can't see the big picture.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, very good responses, which I won't question. One more question, though. How did the universe appear? The planets, stars, etc. I do agree I am not here to preach, but to find answers for my questions. So far I've gotten very good answers. :)

 

This is an excellent question, and it has been asked for ages.

 

Unfortunately the only answer you can get at the moment is, "We don't really know"

Science can be used to extrapolate back to just after the big bang, but before Planck Time the laws of physics as we know them did not exist, so it is impossible (at least at present) to say exactly what was going on then.

 

We do have a few ideas though. Stephen Hawking recently said that he had mathematically proved that black holes are not compressing matter inside them (as many thought) or destroying matter (as Hawking spent many years trying to prove) but is, in fact, sending the matter into another universe.

 

Now think about this, there are likely billions of galaxies in this universe, each with billions of stars, and there is most likely billions of other universes out there, which may obey laws of physics quite unlike our own. It makes one's head hurt I know, but it is certainly possible that matter and energy flow through cycles traveling from one universe to another and back again. Or perhaps something we haven't even considered.

 

No matter what one believes, we must all admit that SOMETHING of some kind has always existed. We just don't know if that something was god.

(when I use the word god I refer to something that is, at the very least, intelligent in some form)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it's a combination of logic, personal experiences, and the evidence. Sure, there's a lot of evidence that can disprove Christianity, if you don't look at all the other evidence out there, or you get the wrong idea from that evidence. Even the smartest people in this world can get so caught up with details that they can't see the big picture.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

 

I am more than willing to look at any evidence out there that suggests Christianity is true. It is a bit galling to have you accuse us of intellectual dishonesty.

 

If you have evidence you are sure I have not considered then present it, otherwise you are just engaging in character assassinations under the guise of nice words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it's a combination of logic, personal experiences, and the evidence. Sure, there's a lot of evidence that can disprove Christianity, if you don't look at all the other evidence out there, or you get the wrong idea from that evidence. Even the smartest people in this world can get so caught up with details that they can't see the big picture.

If you study psychology, you will learn about group think, then you get the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... And where did he create it from? From the "Nothing"? How can that be? If he created it from "Nothing", then this "Nothing" must have been something, and hence not being nothing. It's the Bible story that is confusing and contradictory, not science. Science at least try its best to modify and adjust when it discover new things in nature and space. The Bible story doesn't change, even when nature contradicts the Bible.

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

The god Elohim did have stuff to work with. Elohim did the basic construction work and then handed the project over to the god Yahweh in the 4th verse of chapter 2. Yahweh turned out to be the Donald Trump of gods, and after he took over the project things went south pretty fast.

 

Edit: I'd just like to add that human perception of probability is very poor. The probability that something is as it is is one and it is always one. The idea that "it could have been else wise" interferes with the the reality that something is indeed this. The probability all your ancestors having sex at just the right time and all those sperms finding the right eggs that eventually ended up being you is staggering. Nevertheless the system had to produce something and that something was you. You can think of it as a probability wave that when examined collapses to a point, and that point is one and all the other possible pre-examination points probabilities are zero.

 

Evolution is not random chance. It is a simple system of selection of random chances. The chances are random but the selection is conditional. The best short introduction to evolution and its probabilities I've ever read is Dawkins' River out of Eden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Guest AtheistInAFoxhole

I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes.

 

You should read Only A Theory by Kenneth Miller. Miller is a devout believer, but he debunks Intelligent Design/Creationism and shows absolute proof of descent from Primates, among other things. It's a real eye opener.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest harambee
In the spirit of understanding (rather than debating), I'd like to ask another question of the Christians who are members or guests of this site.

 

Why are you still a Christian, in spite of the evidence and logic to the contrary that's been presented here?

 

What I'm trying to understand is what maintains your belief - on what basis do you continue to believe?

 

If you take a close look at why you are a believer does it come down to reason, evidence, a gut feeling, do you think you are hearing directly from your god, etc? I think most Christians would have to admit that there are strong reasons to disbelieve, but there must be something that is keeping you on the side of belief. What is that, exactly?

 

I'm hoping for answers more explicit than "I have faith". I'm interested in why you have faith.

 

What is keeping me on the side of belief is the person of Jesus. I remain a Christian because I believe that the pure, self-emptying, self-sacrificial love that he modeled is the only way to really change lives and change the world. Building on this, I think Jesus' teachings and life directly reflect the nature of God as well and they tell me that God has invited mankind to partner with him in the processes of creation to literally bring heaven to earth through non-violent, persuasive, self-giving love. That is something I want to be a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think Jesus' teachings and life directly reflect the nature of God and they tell me that God has invited mankind to partner with him in the processes of creation to literally bring heaven to earth through non-violent, persuasive, self-giving love....

 

1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD Jesus sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD Jesus. 2 This is what the LORD Jesus Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

 

Either you are delusional or you haven't read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any evidence that Jesus particularly changed the world for the better in some way? Also, if you admire his ethics and so on what about other people like the BUddha who preached and lived similar things?

 

 

Re, how the universe started, I find it hard to get my head round like most people, but it is fair to say that just becasue Christianity says "God did it." I don;t see how that's a satisfying explanation -- you just come back to the "where did God come from" issue.

 

A friend said to me that the question about what there was before the Big Bang is meaningless as space and time themselves were created in it. Don;t know if that helps..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is keeping me on the side of belief is the person of Jesus. I remain a Christian because I believe that the pure, self-emptying, self-sacrificial love that he modeled is the only way to really change lives and change the world. Building on this, I think Jesus' teachings and life directly reflect the nature of God as well and they tell me that God has invited mankind to partner with him in the processes of creation to literally bring heaven to earth through non-violent, persuasive, self-giving love. That is something I want to be a part of.
By the love of Jesus, do you mean like Jesus' commandment in Luke 19:27?
"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest harambee
What is keeping me on the side of belief is the person of Jesus. I remain a Christian because I believe that the pure, self-emptying, self-sacrificial love that he modeled is the only way to really change lives and change the world. Building on this, I think Jesus' teachings and life directly reflect the nature of God as well and they tell me that God has invited mankind to partner with him in the processes of creation to literally bring heaven to earth through non-violent, persuasive, self-giving love. That is something I want to be a part of.
By the love of Jesus, do you mean like Jesus' commandment in Luke 19:27?
"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”

 

Weak. That's not a command of Jesus, but a command of a person in a story he was telling. It may present some challenges for interpretation, but doesn't make Jesus an advocate of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest harambee
Do you have any evidence that Jesus particularly changed the world for the better in some way? Also, if you admire his ethics and so on what about other people like the BUddha who preached and lived similar things?

 

 

Re, how the universe started, I find it hard to get my head round like most people, but it is fair to say that just becasue Christianity says "God did it." I don;t see how that's a satisfying explanation -- you just come back to the "where did God come from" issue.

 

A friend said to me that the question about what there was before the Big Bang is meaningless as space and time themselves were created in it. Don;t know if that helps..

 

That's true about the Big Bang. For the record, I accept and affirm all that science tells us about the history of the universe, our planet, and life on it, including the Big Bang and evolution.

 

Re the other point, I think Jesus is the 'light of the world,' so any light in the world is due to him. The Kingdom of God is not an all-or-nothing belief system one must fully accept to be saved. It is a certain counter-cultural way of responding to the world as it is. I think many religions, and Buddhism in particular, have grasped a portion of this, though Jesus represents the full enchilada. I don't pretend to understanding God's judgment, but many parts of the Bible suggest that God judges people according to have they have responded to the amount of light they have been give (ironically, this includes the parable in Luke 19 another poster alluded to above). As such, I think it is possible for individuals from, say, Buddhism to be 'saved,' though they are still missing out on some aspects of the Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't pretend to understanding God's judgment, but many parts of the Bible suggest that God judges people according to have they have responded to the amount of light they have been give (ironically, this includes the parable in Luke 19 another poster alluded to above).

I would agree with this, with the exception of identifying "God" as our own conscience. To have awareness of something and choose to deny it or not follow our own sense of truth in our heart, is to live insincerely. This would apply to those who deny hard facts in favor of their marriage to a religious doctrine - such as young earth creationists. That is living insincerely, and the end result is burying one's head in the sand (or money as the parable goes). Living life this way buries that person's unique light under a bushel (continuing to use use that language), and at the end of the day, as they will have lived their lives in denial of the world as it is, thus never having fulfilled their humanity. And that to me is sin against "God" - sin against ourselves. If there were an external deity who judges, he would sooner accept the sincere atheist than the insincere religious.

 

It's interesting to hear your approach. So far it's refreshing compared to the standard fare of Evangelical doctrinal worshipers we get subjected to regularly here. I don't mind religious thought, so long as it's their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

I remain a Christian because I believe it to be true. I believe there are some convincing signs that point to this which I hope to share. First and foremost before even beginning to attempt justify a Christian Biblical God, I must lay down the assertion that there does exist an objective right and wrong and that there is a supernatural (ie; outside of nature) force that determines what is an objective right and wrong. This would most likley fall under a discussion that may already be started elsewhere that I was unable to locate when I innitially logged on. I am willing to go there if directed. This is my first post. I am a newbie and sincerely wish to offend no one here, however, I remain convinced that because all humanity shares an ingrained sense of what is fair and what is not attests to this. If you believe in human rights (which I believe most humans do) you already admit to this sense of fairness and an objective right and wrong. What binds us to and determines what is, a natural human right?

I plan to share no discussion on any particular Christian topics until this first issue I have raised is addressed.

 

in peace; Jacques

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.