The Best Argument For Christianity

[Toxic]

I've also been informed that all the prophecies in the Bible are coming true. Or could it just be that the language in the Bible is so ambiguous that it can mean anything you want it to mean?

[MrBungle]

I've also been informed that all the prophecies in the Bible are coming true. Or could it just be that the language in the Bible is so ambiguous that it can mean anything you want it to mean?

 

yeah try telling that to my father... I dare ya.

[Grandpa Harley]

Ever noticed that prophesies only make sense after an event one can shoe horn into them, and even then only if you take the kind of logic that makes cryptic crosswords interesting?

 

It's never 'Exodus 23:19-22 JFK, don't go to Dallas in November 1963. It's a really bad idea. Honest. Really. Lee Harvey Oswald will be really pissed. And while I'm thinking of it; Screwing blonde actresses. NO!'

 

Now, that would be a useful prophesy.

[MrBungle]

Ever noticed that prophesies only make sense after an event one can shoe horn into them, and even then only if you take the kind of logic that makes cryptic crosswords interesting?

 

It's never 'Exodus 23:19-22 JFK, don't go to Dallas in November 1963. It's a really bad idea. Honest. Really. Lee Harvey Oswald will be really pissed. And while I'm thinking of it; Screwing blonde actresses. NO!'

 

Now, that would be a useful prophesy.

 

yes, yes i have.

[Dave]

Ever noticed that prophesies only make sense after an event one can shoe horn into them, and even then only if you take the kind of logic that makes cryptic crosswords interesting?

 

It's never 'Exodus 23:19-22 JFK, don't go to Dallas in November 1963. It's a really bad idea. Honest. Really. Lee Harvey Oswald will be really pissed. And while I'm thinking of it; Screwing blonde actresses. NO!'

 

Now, that would be a useful prophesy.

I am a prophet. I can foretell earth quakes. I've done it several times and I've never been wrong. I can get the prediction down to a 6 hour time period.

 

Wait......

 

 

I feel a prediction coming on......

 

 

Tomorrow afternoon there will be an earthquake in California.

[Grandpa Harley]

DAve will be doing a tent revival tour, which will include prophecy, testemony, and healings. Send cheques made payable to CASH to me...

[Guest punchybird]

There is ALWAYS an earthquake in California!

[Grandpa Harley]

There is ALWAYS an earthquake in California!

Hush! you're spoiling it now....

[Guest _mike]

You know, it’s because of the following arguments that I'm stuck in a bewildered position of agnosticism. I'm more inclined toward Christianity despite my not wanting to, and I simply am unable to make a definitive decision on the matter. I was raised a Christian and have been battling it intellectually for the past year or so. Yet, I can't seem to rid myself of its blasted rationalistic possibilities.

 

1. The whole cosmological singularity problem: on a cosmological scale, the relevant scientific research during the past 35 or so years, has demonstrated, based on relevant radio-wave and Doppler effect measurements, Einteinian relativity calculations, anti-matter properties, etc., that the universe has not the ability to oscillate in infinity but is rather bound by matter, energy, time, and space back to an initial point at time 0 upon which all that we know sprung forth into being during a 15 billion or so span of years after what we now call the “Big Bang”. The problem we face here is that we have a singularity of universal existence before which nothing at all existed, and from nothing, nothing comes. And so, we must evoke a cause of a sort. If we were to evoke some sort of and/or combination of material/time-bound/energy-bound/space-bound cause for this initial cause of our known universe, that too would inevitably require an and/or combination of material/time-bound/energy-bound/space-bound cause and on and on and on for an infinite backward series called an infinite regress that is not rationally possible, for even if we accept such an infinite model, a single initial cause for all the proceeding causes would logically have to be deduced. And in such a case, this cause would have to be a type of material/time-bound/energy-bound/space-bound cause and an explanation for it too would have to be made. But let us stick with our own universe and assume that it is all that there is. What caused it? Logically, this cause must be an immaterial, timeless, non energy- and non space-bound uncaused cause of the universe. Otherwise, we face the problem of infinite regress once again. By definition this cause is an ontological definition of “God”. Yeah, there are researchers who claim they will discover the cause of our universe (string theorists, super string theorists, etc.) but even then the cause will be bound by some and/or combination of material/time-bound/energy-bound/space-bound properties and will require an explanation similar to the one posed above, and therefore we face the “God” dilemma again. I've read of arguments against the idea which posit that the “God” conclusion is unwarranted because it is not factually based but is rather largely speculative. But it would only be speculative if we assume it to be the Christian God per se, for example. As stated above, however, the God conclusion is defined by observation. Christianity can conform to or provide that their god is indeed the same as the one describes, but for arguments sake, I stick with the mere “God” possibility. The cause of the universe described above could be called anything, but at the end it is what regular old Joes refer to as “God”. Rationally, I simply don't know what to do with the issue. Rejecting it without merit is irrational, and so I hold onto it with a frustration of a sort because I strongly want for the conclusion to be false. But my not liking it cannot change it. It is what it is until proven otherwise, and I have no idea where the future is going with this.

 

2. The whole problem with naturalistic materialism in association with the human condition. The Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga posited the following argument on the human condition: since simple material objects like atoms cannot perceive cognitively with a conscious awareness, it logically follows that a collection of such things cannot perceive cognitively with a conscious awareness, and so our brain's collection of individual neurons etc. cannot have the capacity to perceive cognitively with a conscious awareness and exhibit thought on its own. The conclusion is that humans, along with other simpler thinking vertebrates, possess something beyond their material brains that enables them, in association with their material brains, to perceive cognitively with a conscious awareness and be able to think. It sounds ridiculous, but the logic is clear. It cannot be evaded. Nothing that can be created from simple inanimate objects can possess thought as we do. And computers cannot think and be consciously aware of themselves as we do. Thinking that they may one day is rather far fetched. Again, the argument is compelling and I don't know what to do with it.

 

3. The free will of humans which runs contrary to Neo-Darwinism. It fallows from Neo Darwinian advocates such as Richard Dawkins that all living organisms are primarily governed by their genetically inherited characteristics and associations with their environment. The problem Neo-Darwinists face, however, comes when human subjects are examined. If only the environment and our genes governed all that we do, we wouldn't be doing half the stuff that we do. I, for example, am typing what I type now at 2:00 AM even though its dark, most everyone is asleep, I am tired as hell and am in need of sleep myself, my back is aching and asking me to lie down, and I need to wake up again in 4 hours. Plus, what I'm doing now is not physically benefiting me in any way. But, I “will” to write right now. We have a will to do what is contrary to our environmental and physical stresses. We can choose irregardless of our environment and genes. We have a will, and it tells us something. Possibly something beyond our physical material selves? Sound crazy? Okay, well maybe the Neo-Darwinists are wrong. Well, what do we make of this free will then?

 

There's a bunch of other stuff too that I'm simply to tired to write. Maybe I'll mention them later. And if you noticed, the above arguments are not for the Christian god per se, but they can be nonetheless. At any rate, they elude to a “God” of some sort. Whether or not he/she/it/whatever exists is questionable of course, but is it probable? Ah whatever, I need to sleep. Peace.

 

Mike.