I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[chefranden]

Just to defend the facts, Kant did use "leap of faith" in the context mentioned above by LNC

[shantonu]

Just to defend the facts, Kant did use "leap of faith" in the context mentioned above by LNC

 

Really? Where? I haven't read all of Kant's books, but I did read the first Critque and parts of Groundwork. I don't recall Kant using that phrase. Of course I read these books several years ago.

 

However, unless I am very much mistaken, Kant was not theist in the ordinary sense. To the extent that I understand it, Kant's moral system--and again, I'm not an expert--stems from rational deduction, not the dictates of Scripture.

[Neon Genesis]

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

I don't know about LNC, but I love eating babies. They taste so good with chocolate poured on top. The only thing I like more than eating babies is sacrificing virgins to the devil. We should have a baby eating emoticon for these moments.

[Ouroboros]

Dear Shaman,

 

I have a confession to make, Thor forgive me, I haven't pillaged as much as I used to. The strength in my arms to swing the ax isn't there anymore, and I don't find as much pleasure to see the blood gushing from the necks of innocent victims, not as much as I used to. Maybe Thor can give me a blessing and fill my heart with immoral rage? I'm getting soft, meek, and loving to mankind, and I'm not sure what to do about it.

 

An altruistic heathen.

[shantonu]

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

I don't know about LNC, but I love eating babies. They taste so good with chocolate poured on top. The only thing I like more than eating babies is sacrificing virgins to the devil. We should have a baby eating emoticon for these moments.

 

I guess we just have to laugh at times like this. I wish it were otherwise. I wish that we could have an intelligent conversation about the nature of morality and the insights of the Bible, becuase I do think that the Bible, as flawed as it is, does have much to teach us about who we are and where we might be going.

 

Unfortunately, people like LNC want to play silly games so that they can sound smart. In view of this, I have to say that babies are quite delicious. Particularly amoral babies. Too bad all the Amalekite babies are dead because they would have been particularly tasty.

[chefranden]

Our axioms must conform to reality if they are to be meaningful. If your axiomatic belief is that matter is all that exists, then your beliefs should be consistent to that axiom. I am just trying to point out where materialists make "leaps of faith" in their beliefs. Let's face it, we all build our lives on beliefs, with axioms at the root of those beliefs, so the question is whether we live consistently with our beliefs. 1. When someone says that matter is all that exists, then I question why they then still hold to certain "romantic" (not meant in the usual sense, but that which has emotional appeal but no basis in reality) beliefs. So, the person would put the material world in the lower story of existence and the immaterial realm (meaning, love, hope, etc.) in the upper story, with the line of despair separating the two realms. To cross the line of despair requires a "leap of faith" Kant said, and that is what I believe that many materialists do.

 

I think you make the mistake that many do in these discussions of ethics and morality, which is to confuse ontology with epistemology. 2. We first must answer the question of whether moral values are objective in nature, and if so, on what basis, before we jump to the question of how and from where we derive our knowledge of moral values. I would like to focus on that question before we move on.

 

1. You are supposing that there can't be a social animal without a god. Social animals are social as a survival strategy. Cooperation between individuals is to some degree among various species is a necessary property of a social animal. That cooperation among social mammals is insured by emotion. All the moral emotions compel the individual towards reciprocity with others and the group as a whole. Emotions that center around anger are about preventing or disciplining cheaters. Emotions that center around shame are internal checks against cheating. Emotions that center around compassion are inducements for the individual to share and help. Emotions that center around loyalty enhance group cohesion, especially when in completion with other groups of the same species. Emotions that center around purity keep the group from being contaminated by other groups. Moral behavior is hard wired in you by the genes that came down to you via the evolutionary changes among your ancestors.

 

It is difficult for humans to extend their moral behavior beyond their group. For example theft is immoral among the group, but theft for the good of the group isn't. For example Europeans came to the Americas and took just about everything including life from the people that were already here. That wasn't considered immoral by the Europeans, it was "manifest destiny" that Christian Europeans take the promised land from the heathens just like Israel took the promised land from the Amalekites and others. It was a glorious mission from God not a crime. A more recent example is the invasion of Iraq to secure "American Interests" against "Iraqi Interests". The invasion was accompanied with quite a bit of God's will rhetoric from the Christian right and very little about murder, theft, and genocide came out of any Christian leaders mouth.

 

You should recognize the moral behavior takes place in the meat and it is mostly about what the meat needs to live.(Matthew 25: 31-46); (Lakoff and Johnson)

 

2. Moral values are not objective in nature if you mean that it is something outside of the emotions and behavior of social animals. Moral values are relative, because they facilitate relational behavior in a fluid system. Since relational behavior is fluid within certain biologically fixed parameters moral values must necessarily be fluid to a certain extent as well. That we find morals are similar across groups is an artifact of being the same species as people in other groups.

 

Looking at scripture we find many behaviors that were supported by God's fixed for ever law that would never change have now become reprehensible. You often find the Christian explains this away by saying that those laws were for those people then, because that is what they could understand or some such. In other words even God's moral values are relative to the group in which they are found. Not even God's law is "objective" existing apart from the group in which they are found.

[shantonu]

Looking at scripture we find many behaviors that were supported by God's fixed for ever law that would never change have now become reprehensible. You often find the Christian explains this away by saying that those laws were for those people then, because that is what they could understand or some such. In other words even God's moral values are relative to the group in which they are found. Not even God's law is "objective" existing apart from the group in which they are found.

 

For example, God presumably thought that slavery was okay. There are several justifications for slavery in the OT. We now think that slavery is wrong and we've passess all sort of laws against it. The question is whether slavery was always wrong. The answer to that question must yes. Probably in the future we will recognize that eating meat (except for survival in an emergency) is wrong--and that it was always wrong. Nevertheless, we don't blame meat eaters of the past (like, presumably, Jesus) because while the future may recognize that eating meat is generally wrong, it was not understood that way in the past.

 

This means that human beings can make moral progress. Which is wonderful. Indeed, one of the errors of orthodox Christianity is that Christians tend to think that the present age is immoral or less moral than past ages. But obviously that is untrue as human beings have made enormous progress morally in the past few centuries--ending slavery, creating equal rights for women (at least in theory), ending child labor (in theory), extending rights to non-human animals, creating treaties on the rules of war, and in countless other ways.

[LNC]

What historic definition? You keep claiming that the historic definition of atheism is that it's the claim of knowledge that there is no God when you present no evidence for this claim. I'm not aware of any such historical definition being used by anyone other than uninformed religious believers. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary that the historic definition of atheism is that it means disbelief in God as that is how atheists in the past have defined it. http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofat...reethinkers.htm You'd think atheists would know what atheism means better than Christians do, but apparently Christians act like they're God and can decide what atheists think for them. Again, you can disbelieve something is true without knowing that it isn't. A wife can disbelieve her husband is cheating on her without actually knowing whether or not he is but nobody will say the wife is being agnostic towards the status of her husband's relationship with her. They simply say she doesn't believe her husband is cheating on her. I fail to see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. I can only imagine you're trying to change the definitions because you would lose the debate if you debate the correct definitions because you have no actual evidence for your claims.

 

Stanley, Thomas (1687). The history of philosophy 1655–61. quoted in Oxford English Dictionary. "An Atheist is taken two ways, for him who is an enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods." Thank you for making the point that atheism as a belief system is baseless and illogical.

 

I fail to see why I must do so. I'm not a philosopher or a scientist. You seem to keep forgetting that there's a third option that we don't know the answer to all these questions. But apparently, the phrase "I don't know" is a concept that you can't grasp. But just because we don't know all the answers about the origins of the universe is no reason to proclaim God must have done it. If I was in school and couldn't figure out how to solve a math problem, would the teacher let me give up and say that God did it as an answer to a math problem I couldn't understand? What if doctors didn't try to bother to understand what causes diseases and sickness and said God must have done it and that you should repent of your sins to heal yourself as a reason instead of trying to research the real cause of the illness and trying to create a medicine to or surgery to heal it?

 

Unless you're insane, you would likely find such a reaction from a doctor to be inexcusable and would hope they could find a cure. For some reason though, when it comes to the origins of the universe, if we can't understand how something works, then we can be excused and be lazy and simply say God must have done it. I don't know about Yahweh, but if I was God and I created the universe, I would feel insulted that my creations would stop trying to learn about the way my universe works and would want them to try and find the answers themselves. For some reason though, Yahweh is content with underachiever followers who are not interested in learning about his universe. Is that really a way to show gratitude to God?

 

Furthermore, if I'm not let off the hook if I can't explain how everything works right then and there, then neither are you let off the hook because you still have to explain away who created God. If the universe is so complex and orderly that it had to have been created by God in order to exist, then God would be just as complex as his creation. If complex things need creators in order to exist, since God would have to be as complex as his creation, then who was the creator that created God? If a complex God can exist without a creator, then there's no reason why the universe can't do the same and your argument fails. The same thing applies to morality. If we need a creator to have morality, then who gave God his sense of morality if God wasn't created? And if God can have morality without being created, why can't we? Also, if God gave us morality and logic, then why is it that some humans are immoral and some humans are illogical? Shouldn't all humans be moral and logical then if God gave it to us? Did God just forget to give morality and logic to some people? And if our morality and logic comes from God, why do we need to believe in the bible if we got it directly from God? Wouldn't the bible be meaningless then? And even if there was a god who created the universe, I fail to see why it's yours.

 

Your worldview, and that is what atheism is, despite what people say, must be able to explain the universe and the phenomena within the universe. You cannot just take a head in the sand position and say I know your wrong, but I don't know what is right. If you know one position to be untrue it is because you know information to be true that contradicts that position. Now, the existence of the universe demands an explanation. It has either existed for eternity past, is self-caused, or the product of an outside intelligent agent (based upon the fact that it has design and contains intelligence). Science has all but ruled out the first option, philosophy has ruled out the second, and no one has ruled out the third. Now, you hold the option of "I don't know" which isn't an answer and doesn't lead to atheism, but to agnosticism. It doesn't rule out God, but holds that God is a possible answer. I can respect an agnostic in this state of mind who is still open to all possiblities, I cannot respect the person who flat out rules God out of the realm of possibility, since that is not based upon knowledge, but presuppositions which cannot be verified.

 

Now, a common misconception is that those who believe in God stop doing science, which is totally fallacious. Many of the great scientists and doctors were and are believers in God. In fact, until the 20th century, most scientists held belief in God. Georges Lemaître was a Roman Catholic Priest and was the person most responsible for the Big Bang theory. So, it does not follow that because one believes in God that they stop being inquisitive. Many great scientists were motivated to understand how God ordered the universe and world.

 

You should do a little more reading in philosophy before asking the "who created God" question. That is what is known as a category mistake or error. Immaterial entities do not necessarily require causal explanations since they are not bound by the laws of physics like material entities. Second, it is commonly understood in philosophy that the definition for God is a necessary being and necessary beings are uncaused, otherwise they would be contingent. I don't fault you for this question, however, as it is one that Richard Dawkins continues to press, looking foolish in doing so. That question has been asked and answered so many times that I am surprised that it continues to come up.

 

Finally, your argument that God must be complex needs further explanation. I know that this is an argument that Dawkins uses; however, he assumes much and explains little as well. In what way would God be complex? Surely not physically since he is not physical. So, in what way is God complex? You will have to explain that one. Regarding morality, your argument is different from the argument that I make. I say that objective morality requires an objective basis or source or grounding. God doesn't create morality, it is a reflection of his eternal character. Your questions simply would lead you to an infinite regress which has logical problems of its own. There must be a starting point for everything, whether it is the universe, morality, logic, or anything other that is not infinite or eternal. The fact that some people choose to disobey or not think does not mean that they do not understand morality or don't think logically. I would say that one could not survive if one did not, in some ways, think logically. The Bible is a recorded revelation of God's character and standards, these are things that haven't been revealed directly to every person. As for whether the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, that is a longer discussion than I care to get into in this response; however, if you care to read the NT, you will see why I believe that the God of the Bible is the true God.

 

The contradictions of the bible may not disprove the existence of God, but it would certainly disprove a literal belief in the Christian god and would disprove the bible as a source of reliable authority. As for contradictions, if the god of the bible is so perfect and all-powerful, please explain why God lost to iron chariots in Judges 1:19

So the LORD was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Doesn't this prove God is not all-powerful if God could lose to iron chariots?

 

I am not sure what you mean by "literal belief in the Christian [G]od". Regarding the story in Judges, one must understand the flow of the book. The book recounted how the people gained victory when they trusted in God and suffered defeats when they trusted in themselves. The danger of taking one Bible verse and trying to build a doctrine from it is that one often rips it from the context, and this is the case here. If you read earlier in the passage, the people defeated armies that were much larger than their own, so to say that God was somehow stumped as to how to defeat these iron chariots is to misunderstand the chapter and the rest of the book. So, no, it doesn't prove that God could lose to iron chariots because, if you read on, they are eventually defeated.

 

Did it ever occur to you that you might know any because most atheists wouldn't be gullible enough to believe in Christianity in the first place or reconvert to Christianity after later becoming atheists? Doesn't the lack of atheists that struggle in converting to Christianity prove that Christianity isn't true? If Christianity was so obviously the truth, wouldn't there be more atheists who convert to Christianity in general? Why is it that the majority of people who convert to Christianity are people who already have the predisposition to believe in God and the supernatural? Surely if Christianity was obviously the truth, we would see more atheist converts in general? You still have not explained how struggling to deconvert from Christianity proves that it's true. You simply say it is because you say so. Also, just because you might not know any examples of struggling Christian converts doesn't mean there aren't any out there. Have you met every person on Earth to claim that there aren't any? Are you so all-knowing and all-powerful that you know what every Christian thinks at all times? I also think it's hypocritical for you to say there are no struggling Christians but then when we give examples of some in this thread, you turn around and say they weren't true Christians. That's called circular reasoning, you know. You can't on the one hand say there are no struggling Christians but on the other hand say struggling Christians aren't true Christians. They either are or they aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's intellectually dishonest and makes you a liar.

 

So, are you calling atheists who believe in God gullible? If so, what does that say about one of the most prominent atheists of the 20th century, Antony Flew, who a few years back abandoned atheism? However, I do know of many people who came from atheism to Christianity or to a belief in God who never struggled. So, your point doesn't carry. It takes more than mere intellectual ascent for one to become a Christian or even to leave atheism. If it were only an intellectual issue, yes more people would abandon atheism; but, the truth is that it is a heart issue that prevents a person from abandoning atheism. If it were only people who were somehow predisposed to believe, then you would expect them to believe right away when they hear about Christianity; however, many become Christians after studying the validity of the claims of Christianity. There is a definition of a true Christian and a definition of a false Christian, I simply put people to the test. However, people on this site claim to be ex-Christians, which is a different argument. These aren't people who claim to be Christians, as the Bible defines a Christian, and former atheists, and struggling with leaving atheism behind; and that was the gist of the discussion. So, no, I am not guilty of circular reasoning as you claim. In fact, it is you who are guilty of creating a straw man to knock down. You may want to consider more carefully before calling someone a liar - you have not proved such of me, and there is a difference between circular reasoning (of which you accused me) and lying (of which you also accused me), so you are guilty of a non-sequitur. Yet, I find many atheists are quick to make such judgments - it is not the first time that I have been falsely accused of lying by an atheist.

 

You're being hypocritical again. On the one hand, you admit that quote doesn't prove the inerrancy of the bible, but on the other hand, you turn around and say this is proof that Jesus is God when this quote says no such thing about Jesus being God. Furthermore, nowhere in the bible does Jesus actually say that he's God. That's just something the Council of Nicaea made up but there's no biblical justification for the Trinity at all.

 

Go back and read my quote, I claimed no such thing. I said that I don't know of anyone who basis inerrancy on that passage, inerrancy is derived from by other reasoning. The quote does attest to Jesus being an actual person, which is why I referred to it to begin with. Jesus made many claims of deity. Did he use the words "I am God", no, but the Jews understood his claims as being equal to those very words. Here are three passages to which you can refer: John 8:48-58; John 10:22-39; and, John 14:7-12. You need to read the actual history before making these claims. The doctrine of the Trinity was accepted doctrine even in the NT writings of the Bible, so it was hardly "something the Council of Nicea made up". I would encourage you to read the NT and see that it flows throughout.

 

No it does not make sense. You don't believe in Santa Claus, right? But does that mean your disbelief in Santa Claus has any doctrines? If your disbelief in Santa Claus is a doctrine because not having any doctrines is a doctrine itself, then are you admitting you're following a different doctrine than the bible and that you belong to the religion of the non-believers of Santa Claus? Now do you realize how illogical your argument is?

 

Yes, I have a belief that an actual person by the name of Santa Claus doesn't exist. I don't just lack belief that Santa exists, I actually have a belief that he doesn't exist. I have doctrines about all kinds of things; however, that doesn't mean that I belong to that religion. I am not claiming that you belong to a religion, just that you have a belief. That is allo that a doctrine is, a belief or set of beliefs. Now, I have shown that my position is completely logical and consistent, by properly defining terms. You follow and live according to the belief that God doesn't exist do you not?

 

But you believe that atheists are somehow inherently more immoral than Christians and that we deserve to be punished by the wrath of God, right? And do you believe that God will reward Christians if they follow a rulebook to life based on out-dated morals and science? If you do, then that is a materialistic belief because then you'd only be following God for the sake of a system of rewards and punishments, not because you actually believe in the words of Jesus or because you care about saving others. If you only believe in God so you can get brownie points in heaven, please explain to me how that is not a materialistic belief. And can you please stop equating materialism with economic materialism as if they were the same thing? Because I hope you know that they aren't and it makes you look intellectually dishonest. Your argument that we're slaves to our DNA makes no sense either. If we're slaves to DNA, then since God created our DNA, do you admit God created us to be slaves to DNA?

 

If you will read back on what I have written, you will find that I never claimed that atheists are inherently more immoral than Christians. I believe that all people deserve to be punished by God, including me. I don't believe that God will reward Christians with heaven for following a rulebook, that is a common misunderstanding of the gospel. I believe that although I deserve hell, God has sent his Son to earth to go to the cross and pay the penalty that I deserved. Because I have put my trust in him, his payement applies to my sin and his righteousness is applied to me. I don't deserve it, it is a free gift that God offers to anyone who will trust in him. So, no, I don't have a materialist belief as you claim. I don't know how you conclude that I have been conflating materialism with economic materialism, I have given no such reference to economic materialism. It is not me who argues that man is a slave to his DNA, that would be no less than Richard Dawkins. So, if you have a problem with that argument, please go to www.richarddawkins.net and take it up with him. Your last statement only goes to prove my poiint as you tacitly admit that people are slaves to their DNA. I don't claim such as I believe that God has given man free agency to make choices. Man is not a robot if God exists and has been created in his image.

 

So since you have beliefs about Islam that you have been indoctrinated in by other Christians who disbelieve in Islam, then you admit that your disbelief in Islam is a religion and that you belong to a religion other than Christianity. And since believing in a different religion is a sin in the bible, if you believe in the religion of non-belief in Islam, then you've just admitted you've committed the sin of not believing in Islam. Congratulations, you've just condemned yourself to hell.

 

I have valid arguments as to why I believe that Islam is a false worldview. For one, I believe that the Christian worldview is true based upon evidence that I have examined, and Islam makes contradictory claims to Christianity, therefore, only one can be true. I believe that the evidnece for Christianity is superior to that of Islam. Again, I am not claiming that you belong to a religion, you are making a straw man argument and building a false dichotomy as a result. Just because someone has a belief doesn't mean that that belief automatically turns into a religion. I believe a lot of things about a lot of subjects, but I don't claim that each is a religion. You have a false understanding of what a religion is. My sins are covered by Christ, therefore, he has taken hell for me, but thanks for your concern.

[LNC]

I already told you what it would take for me to trust in him. He must behave morally. Given that the Bible shows ample evidence of God's immorality, God must perform a miracle. The miracle I demand is that he demonstrate that all of the immoral commandments (such as those I've described as well as those in Joshua and elsewhere) were just a misunderstanding.

 

God, for example, has to make a statue talk, or a pillar of fire or a burning bush talk and proclaim that killing babies is wrong, and that he never ordered any genocides, and that he never killed off the first born of the Egyptians, and that he never picked out a single tiny group of people to be "favored," and that he never supported slavery or the subordination of women, or the murder of gay people, and that he loves all human beings and wants to teach us how to live in harmony and brotherhood, and that while he must punish us if we do wrong, he would not punish us forever because he wants only to teach us properly, and that all of the texts contrary to this were just misguided human interpolations and edits and that all that stuff was just one giant mistake.

 

If God were to do that, I would trust in him. More than that, I would gladly trust and worship him.

 

You have yet to give me a reason to believe that you have an objective basis on which to judge anyone beyond yourself to be moral or immoral. Unless you can, you are simply being judgmental. God has performed many miracles that you seem to ignore, including sending Jesus to earth to die and rise again. However, if you want God to be your pet dog to reply to your commands, then don't hold your breath. God is the ruler of the universe, not you.

 

If God were to do all of those things; however, I believe that you would probably still have a reason not to trust him.

[LNC]

LOL, whats not to get? One more time, simplified just for you. The saddness and loss that people feel after leaving a cult. What is that about?

 

No science book goes against the Bible, huh. So you were reading and when you got to the age of the earth and the universe and evolution, you just stuck your fingers in your ears and closed you eyes and shouted, "Not listening, blah blah blah, not going to listen"?

 

As for how life formed, nobody can be certain about it for there is nothing left that can be analyzed or studied Maybe this will help you out. http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vo...-warm-pond.html

 

As for the universe: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070...m_universe.html

 

To sum it up, no one knows exactly for sure. Like i said before, there isn't anything left to go by. However, this is no reason to just give up and assume that it was all magic and that a supernatural sky man created it all by merely blinking, or wait, he didn't blink did he, he did it in six days. Six days to do what a typical, perfect, omnipotent god could do in an instant.

 

The grammar of your sentence was a bit too tortured for me to actually understand what you were asking, sorry. As for the sadness and loss that people feel in leaving Christianity (I won't speak for cults as that is not my realm of understanding), it seems that many on this site express that sadness. As for what that is about, maybe it is the sadness of leaving the truth behind, and with it, family, friends, etc.

 

Where in the Bible do you see the age of the earth given? I don't see it in there. If you know differently then maybe you can quote chapter and verse.

 

Science is about developing methodologies to recreate how events happened in the past. So, if it can be done, then science should be confident that they are going to be able to solve that dilemma. However, if you read origin of life research, as I have, you will find that they have no such confidence in finding the answer on this planet. Consider the book by Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada entitled The Spark of Life in which they say that the early atmosphere of the earth would have been too hostile to allow for abiogenesis to occur. They believe that the "primordial soup" often referred to may not even have formed on earth during that time, and if it did, not in sufficient abundance to spawn life. One then has the morality problem to overcome and this problem has not been solved by science. In addition, the blog to which you referred me has outdated information. Miller-Urey is no longer held as a valid proof or explanation as origin of life science has now shown that the earth's atmosphere did not resemble that which the M-U experiment used. You can read about that in Wills' and Bada's book as well.

 

As to the article to which you referred to me regarding the origin of the universe and the Ekpyrotic Cyclical Model, I don't know how that makes a case for you. The theory has a number of problems to it, but it ultimately also points to an absolute beginning of the meta-universe according to the most recent research on the subject. Apparently, the author of the article either was unfamiliar with the latest research or simply missed that critical element. In essence, his/her conclusion of an ageless universe is nullified. Here is what Arvind Borde and Alan Guth said in their paper entitled, Inflation is not Past Eternal,

"The intuitive reason why de Sitter inflation cannot be past-eternal is that, in the full de Sitter space, exponential expansion is preceded by exponential contraction. Such a contracting phase is not part of standard inflationary models, and does not appear to be consistent with the physics of inflation."

So, the author of this article hasn't done thorough work.

 

So, you see, we know more that you think we know about the origin of the universe and the problems with abiogenesis. I am not appealing to God of the gaps as some would claim, but simply pointing to the fact that the universe points beyond itself. I am not appealing to magic (another straw man argument) but to that which lies beyond nature as the logical answer. One otherwise has to appeal to magic by claiming that the universe and life just popped into existence (by magic or by itself) which is not logical. What is quite logical to surmise is that they are the result of an external agent. It is also logical to surmise that that agent is personal, since we are personal, and that had to come from somewhere (unless personality is an illusion). Also, it is logical to surmise a personal agent since the universe is only about 14 billion years old. If it were the product of an impersonal agent, we would expect it to be much older - eternally older. I can explain if you don't understand why this is the case, let me know.

[LNC]

So, in conclusion, I don't think that you have credibly debunked any of these sources, thus they stand as relevent witnesses.

 

LNC, your reply to AM in no way refutes what he said in his post.

 

If you believe this you will have to give reasons. sorry, but all this is is an empty assertion.

[LNC]

Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real.

 

Hi. I can totally recommend a book called "Gospel Truth" written by Russell Shorto. It's a summary of the findings of the various Historical Jesus projects, and even though I'm unable to agree with many of the author's conclusions, the book is absolutely fascinating. If you or anyone else has read it, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.

 

Thanks, I will check it out when I get the chance.

[LNC]

It sounds to me like a completely normal response. Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian would give you a good start.

 

You know that this is a crock of shit, but I'm not going to argue with you because I'm tired of rehashing the same old shit every time a new Christian know-it-all stops by. Perhaps some of the younger members will have fun refuting some of your solid hearsay evidence.

 

I wouldn't bother writing this, except that you seem to be an unusually smart Christian, and maybe you could pull something new and interesting out of your ass. That would be more fun, and maybe even advance your cause.

 

No, I don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I have shown that these are quite valid and relevant sources. Thanks for your response and concern though.

[LNC]

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

If ignoring my request to provide an objective basis for your moral claims is "pwning" me, then you da man! Yet, I believe that, in the end, it is you who cannot answer for the basis of your complaint. So, your complaint is moot.

[LNC]

I may be eating my words here, but I think everybody here owned him. To be honest, I'd like to see what he has to say about Christianity being parasitic with Greek philosophy since atheists are apparently parasitic to the Christian worldview.

 

I believe that I already answered that, but it may have been after you posted this message.

[LNC]

Just admit it, you're cutting and pasting from some listserv somewhere. But they don't have the answer to my question. he he he.

 

 

That would be easy enough for you to check out. I am still awaiting an answer from you.

 

Name calling is what one refers to when one doesn't have an argument.

[Astreja]

Your worldview, and that is what atheism is, despite what people say, must be able to explain the universe and the phenomena within the universe.

Not so. Atheism is an element that appears in a wide variety of worldviews.

 

I am a Humanist. I do not look to either Humanism or Atheism if I want to ponder the origins of the universe. For that, I investigate the physical sciences.

 

Now, the existence of the universe demands an explanation.

I don't think it does, quite frankly. We're here. That's all I'm really concerned about. It probably existed prior to 1957, and will probably continue to exist after My physical body dies, but beyond that, I don't need to know how old it is, where it came from, or where it's going.

 

Finally, your argument that God must be complex needs further explanation. I know that this is an argument that Dawkins uses; however, he assumes much and explains little as well. In what way would God be complex? Surely not physically since he is not physical.

Unsupported assertion. Produce the data that indicates that your god exists and is "not physical".

 

The Bible is a recorded revelation of God's character and standards...

I disagree. I think it's a record of the character and standards of the Bible's human authors.

 

...however, if you care to read the NT, you will see why I believe that the God of the Bible is the true God.

LNC, what part of Ex-Christian do you fail to comprehend? Virtually everyone here has read the NT.

 

I believe that all people deserve to be punished by God, including me.

That is a deeply troubling stance that has the potential to cause lasting psychological damage.

[LNC]

This is a load of crap. First of all, the Christian god most certainly does have a physical form. God is described as being a male being many times throughout the bible. God also appears in physical form many times, such as the burning bush and according to Trinitarian Christians, in the flesh of Jesus, who also somehow existed during the time of creation along with Yahweh. Even Abraham wrestled with God who appeared as a man in the OT and the bible specifically refers to Abraham as having seen the face of God. So, the Christian god most certainly does have a physical form but you've apparently never read the bible yourself to know this. And if non-physical entities don't require fine tuning, then are you confessing the wind does not need fine tuning? The wind isn't a physical entity either yet you say that since wind is part of the universe, it needs to be fine tuned. If the wind doesn't need to be fine tuned since the wind is not a physical entity, then neither does the rest of the universe since the wind is part of the universe. Gravity is another thing which has no physical form yet you say gravity needs to have been fine tuned? So either non-physical entities need to be fine tuned as well and the same should apply to God or if non-physical entities don't need to be fine tuned to exist, then the wind and gravity don't need to be fine tuned either, but since they're also apart of the universe, there's no reason why the rest of the universe can't exist without being fine tuned if the wind and gravity can't.

 

What??? Have you ever heard of the term anthropomorphism. You might want to look it up before you read the hands on the face of your watch, it might be alive! Regarding the burning bush, God didn't become the bush, he spoke while Moses was at the bush. Jesus took on human flesh, but he existed prior to that, so that doesn't work either. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or even imply that God is physical. By the way, wind is made up of the atmosphere (oxygen, and other elements) in motion, so, I hate to break this to you but wind is physical. I am not sure what you mean when you say that wind doesn't need to be fine tuned. I don't believe that I brought wind into the discussion. Gravity is a physical force (one of the four basic constants, along with the strong and weak nuclear force and electromagnetism). You are mistaken in your understanding and therefore you have failed to make your point in disproving that you made a category error.

 

How can you rebel against something you don't believe in? And why should a loving God care if people rebel against him or not if they're otherwise basically good people? Even if rebellion deserves a just punishment, how is eternal torture justified? That's like saying if a child runs away from home, that means the parent can beat the child to death. Since you believe people who rebel against God deserve punishment simply for not sucking up to God, then do you believe that the Holocaust was justified and that God was just in allowing Hitler to torture the Jews if it's justified to torture the Jew for rebelling against God? Don't you realize this is the same "logic" that Hitler used for the Holocaust?

 

It doesn't matter whether you believe in the truth or not, it doesn't affect the outcome. One can disbelieve the laws of gravity and yet, when that person steps off a cliff, the law still holds and they are dead (assuming the cliff is high enough). Again, God is more than just loving, he is also just; therefore, rebellion cannot be tolerated. However, he is loving and provided a way for that rebellion to be paid for by the death of Jesus, so he made the most loving sacrifice for us, if we will trust in him. You also mistake your standing before God, we are not "basically good people" if we are rebelling against him, that simply doesn't make sense. I never said that we deserve punishment because we don't "suck up" to God, we deserve punishment because we rebel against God - there is a difference. The Holocaust was not justified and Hitler and his henchmen will suffer punishment for their parts in this tragedy. In your worldview, they have gotten off basically with no punishment for their crimes. God will not violate our freedom, even if it means that we do horrible things, however, it is we who are guilty, not he. Your logic is also tortured in that God did not allow the Jews to be tortured because they rebelled against him, he allows evil people to commit evil acts because he has created us as free agents and cannot violate that. If he did, we would get into what is called the shortest man scenario and all end up as his robots. I don't think any of us want to be robots or pets.

[chefranden]

No, I don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I have shown that these are quite valid and relevant sources. Thanks for your response and concern though.

 

The sources you mentioned are valid sources except for Josephus*. But all they prove is that there were some Christians. The sources prove nothing about Jesus. The references to Jesus are hearsay at best. This is not evidence. It is crap as far as proving the existence of Jesus. You will have to just depend on faith.

 

*By the way I knew this about Josephus when I was a fundamentalist preacher. Learned it in bible collage I did.

[LNC]

That is ridiculous. Whether or not there were thousands of other fruit trees in the garden is irrelevent. The fact is that "one little tree" was put there for the sole purpose of temptation. It should never have been there in the first place. It's like i have a roomful of kids and i stick a loaded shotgun in the room with them and tell them not to touch it. The point isn't that their curiosity will eventually get the better of them, it is the breath taking irresponsibility/recklessness/stupidity on my part. How could i have prevented little Johnny from blowing off his head? By not putting the god damn gun in there!!! Whats more, i then get made at the kids and act like it's their fault.

 

And your children analogy is even more insane. No parent would punisher their kids with eternal torment, no parent would kill all their kids because they did something wrong (the flood). No parent would curse their child's descendants or strike them down with some terrible disease or wipe them out with some natural disaster. Another thing is we don't have to power to forsee things like god does, so we do not have the ability to stop something before it happens. But god has this ability, yet does nothing. Still yet, he gets his panties in a wad at us for it.

 

So, how does God create free agents but still not allow any temptation? If it wasn't the tree, there would have been plenty of other situations that would have tempted Adam and Eve. The fact is, we are either free, and therefore, subject to temptations, or we are not free. God could not create both free agents and a world that would have been completely free of temptations. He would have had to have a world with no rules, which would have been a world of chaos. So, do you believe that that would have been better?

 

Do you have kids? Have you ever told them not to do something, only to see them do it anyway? Who did the wrong, you for making the rule and thereby tempting them, or them for violating the rule. You can't have it both ways. God didn't set a loaded gun in the room, he made a simple rule that was even simpler to obey. There are thousands of tress that you can eat from and only one that you can't eat from. It could have been millions or billions of trees, and it still wouldn't have mattered. What you want is a world with no rules or no consequences, and either scenario leads to chaos and confusion. I don't think anyone would want that. The only other possibility would be to make robots who could not make free choices. I don't think you would want that either.

[LNC]

1. Why should God pissed off about a rebel creation, having been its creator? He is really pissed off at himself isn't he for being such a screw up isn't he? He's just giving the tin lizzie a kick because he hasn't got it right yet.

 

If God is the creator of everything, then well he is the creator of everything -- including the screw ups. If I create an new airplane and it's iterations keep falling out of the sky, who's probably at fault? If God can't create a pair of progenitors with an anti sin reproduction filter, you know just in case, then he can go suck an egg with his pissy ways.

 

Why did God let the whole shebang get out of hand in the first place. He should have killed Adam and Eve like he said he would, and started over until he got it right. What gives? Did he run out of dirt? I have a potter friend that has a junk pile. If he doesn't like a pot he made he pitches it. If your tea pot drips or dribbles he'll make you a new own free of charge. He's kind of particular about his tea pots. Tea pots that don't meet the muster get mashed. And don't you dare say we are not pots.

 

So latter having realized his error he drowns the whole deal, but instead of starting over he saves a few sin tainted fuck ups for breeding stock. But then maybe Yahweh was fresh out of Mormon god school and wasn't managing his planet so well. So anyway he waits 4000 years or so before he gets the bright idea of knocking himself out for a few hours as a fix. And I'll be god damned if that didn't fail as well. The joint is still fucked up*.

 

Well you'll probably say that heaven is the perfect place, not here. Well if God was going to get all pissed off over the earth, why didn't he just cut to the chase and stock heaven with perfect people? (Perhaps the Mormons are right and Yahweh can only make people by fucking his spiritual wives?) If he can only abide perfect people then why not just make perfect people or at least people that could be perfect if they chose to?

 

You are right about Yahweh having other attributes. He's not the omni-max being so many Christians make him out to be. He's a pissy whiner that likes to blame his lack of pottery skills on the pots. He sort of reminds me of the psychic that sells lucky lottery numbers out of the back of his rusted out Econoline van. Good thing God is not real or I have to try to kick his ass.

 

Adam and Eve did die, both spiritually (immediately) and physically (some years later). God could have created and destroyed thousands or millions of times and it would have come out the same, since we are free agents and, therefore, susceptible to sin. God had a plan to redeem fallen man and to show what a loving God he is in the process. I know that will be hard to accept as an explanation, but God is loving in that he made us free, allowed us to mess up, and then provided his son to redeem us from our mess and its consequences.

 

2. Fuck, not much of a temptation! You shall be as gods! Besides if it wasn't much of a temptation why was the penalty death, or rather eternal torment for countless souls?

 

By your reasoning here you are admitting that God didn't make Adam and Eve perfect to begin with. Knowing that they would screw up, he must have intended for them to screw up, because else-wise he would have just changed the recipe a bit. In spite of his intention he then gets pissed because they did what he designed them to do. Let's just shoot dogs because they have tails.

 

Of course you could argue that if he designed them to screw up and they screwed up that was perfection. But then where is the bitch? Perhaps God was bored with being content and said to himself, I know I'll make some things that piss me off, that will be different. So he likes being pissed off, drowning kittens, throwing plagues about, killing babies by making sure that the Pharaoh didn't give in to his demands, killing a baby for the sin of its father, vesting ten generations with punishment for the sins of their fathers (and then later saying he did no such thing), ordering genocide, condoning slavery, giving women chattel status, and ...

 

Edit:

 

*Knowing the record, I wouldn't be very excited about the rapture if I were you. I'm not sure that 2000 years of training in the Earth Simulator is going to do the trick this time either. Third time's the charm?

 

You mistake the serpents lie for God tempting them. God didn't tempt them with that lie, nor did he tempt them at all. He simply made one rule. Now, if you consider rules to be the same as temptations, then I suppose that you don't make rules for your children if you have any. There is a difference between making rules and tempting someone to break them.

 

God gave Adam and Eve freedom to make a choice. They were morally perfect before sinning. Foreknowing is not that same as fore-ordaining, or even intending. I know that when I set boundaries for my kids they will be tempted to violate them, but I don't intend for them to do so, nor do I want them to. I am also not guilty if they do violate them simply because I made the rule. That doesn't logically follow. If that were the case, we should prosecute the government for creating rules that people break everyday in society. We should sue the government every time we get a speeding ticket or a parking ticket for making those rules. That doesn't follow.

[chefranden]

1. So, how does God create free agents but still not allow any temptation? If it wasn't the tree, there would have been plenty of other situations that would have tempted Adam and Eve. The fact is, we are either free, and therefore, subject to temptations, or we are not free. God could not create both free agents and a world that would have been completely free of temptations. He would have had to have a world with no rules, which would have been a world of chaos. So, do you believe that that would have been better?

 

2. Do you have kids? Have you ever told them not to do something, only to see them do it anyway? Who did the wrong, you for making the rule and thereby tempting them, or them for violating the rule. You can't have it both ways. God didn't set a loaded gun in the room, he made a simple rule that was even simpler to obey. There are thousands of tress that you can eat from and only one that you can't eat from. It could have been millions or billions of trees, and it still wouldn't have mattered. What you want is a world with no rules or no consequences, and either scenario leads to chaos and confusion. I don't think anyone would want that. The only other possibility would be to make robots who could not make free choices. I don't think you would want that either.

 

1. First question that comes to mind about your free agency: is there sin in heaven? If there is no sin in heaven why not?

 

If there is no sin in heaven then:

a. God is content to live with robots, or

b. God can make free will individuals who live without sin therefore what is the problem with doing the same here?

 

If there is sin in heaven what the fuck is the problem with sin here?

 

2. Do you have kids? When they disobey you do you banish them from your presence and dip them in fire? Should we call social services?

 

Someone should call social services on God. There should be a number on the back of God's baby carriage underneath the sign, How's my parenting? Pretty horseshit I'd say.

[chefranden]

Adam and Eve did die, both spiritually (immediately) and physically (some years later). God could have created and destroyed thousands or millions of times and it would have come out the same, since we are free agents and, therefore, susceptible to sin. God had a plan to redeem fallen man and to show what a loving God he is in the process. I know that will be hard to accept as an explanation, but God is loving in that he made us free, allowed us to mess up, and then provided his son to redeem us from our mess and its consequences.

 

If I only had a nickle for every time I said this and a dime for every time it has appeared on this board...

 

But you agree with me then. God intended to have a fallen creation, or he is so incompetent of a creator that he couldn't get it right in a million tries.

 

He wanted to have the drama. He wanted millions to burn in hell so that he could demonstrate love. He wanted thousands of child sex slaves to rot without hope of rescue either physically or "spiritually"? He wanted thousands of child soldiers with about the same hope? He wanted all of the misery just so he could love you? And you want me to believe that such a Sky Psycho loves me? Well maybe it does, but I couldn't love it. It is too much like being loved by Saddam Hussein.

 

You mistake the serpents lie for God tempting them. God didn't tempt them with that lie, nor did he tempt them at all. He simply made one rule. Now, if you consider rules to be the same as temptations, then I suppose that you don't make rules for your children if you have any. There is a difference between making rules and tempting someone to break them.

 

Oh I see, then God didn't make the snake? God didn't know what the snake would do? Sorry if God is the creator then he is responsible for the snake, and the snakes actions. If God is the creator than he is responsible for making the desire to be gods. By the way if Adam and Eve were God's children rather than his claymations, why shouldn't they want to be gods? Kittens grow up to be cats. Children grow up to be people. Children of a god should grow up to be gods. If this isn't the case then Adam and Eve were not children of God.

 

If God is the father than he is responsible for the kids behavior. He is also responsible for the punishment. Do you kill your children when they disobey you? If you did what would they learn? Do you leave loaded handguns laying around the house and say hey don't fool with these or you will die! You should go to jail if you do. I'm sorry but this pathetic explanation just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

1. God gave Adam and Eve freedom to make a choice. They were morally perfect before sinning.

 

2. Foreknowing is not that same as fore-ordaining, or even intending.

 

I know that when I set boundaries for my kids they will be tempted to violate them, but I don't intend for them to do so, nor do I want them to.

 

2. I am also not guilty if they do violate them simply because I made the rule. That doesn't logically follow. If that were the case, we should prosecute the government for creating rules that people break everyday in society. We should sue the government every time we get a speeding ticket or a parking ticket for making those rules. That doesn't follow.

 

1. How can you be morally perfect and yet make the wrong moral choice? What kind of nonsense is that? Are you saying that God can sin? If one sins then it is obvious that one is not morally perfect. Didn't Jesus say, "by their fruits you shall know them"? Besides Adam and Eve did not know good from evil -- that is what they ate the fruit to find out. Shit they were gamboling about naked and didn't even notice. Going about naked is sinful, but they didn't know it. Not till they ate from the tree did they go, "oops, guess we'd better get dressed before dad comes home".

 

2. Sorry but it is. If you have a gun and have loaded the gun and then put the gun where the child can play with it. If you know the child will play with it you have fore ordained the child's death even if you did not intend the child's death. God made the gun. God loaded the gun. God knew the kids would play with it. God is one fucked up dad.

 

3. Yes you are guilty at least guilty of failure to teach your children right from wrong. That is unless you acknowledge that humans were designed to learn by mistake. Designed by whom according to your world view? So here we have a being designed to learn by mistake, being condemned to death along with myriads of decedents for making a mistake.

 

Another reason you are not at fault for the children's disobedience is that you didn't make them. Oh sure you made the beast with two backs from time to time, but you did not make them. God made them, and God made them flawed i.e. mistake making critters. And then is pissed off because they make mistakes. Again the one who designs behaviors is the one responsible for behaviors that happen.

 

Your parenting metaphor is flawed for 2 reasons: a. Parents are not creators. b. Creators are not parents. If God exists, God is not your parent. God is your Creator therefore his responsibility for your workings is absolute. If he wanted you to have free will and therefore be a sinner, fine. The potter can shape the pot as he likes. What does not follow logically or morally is that the potter should punish the pot for being the shape he intended to make it. The Creator is responsible for the created in all it's aspects, because without the creator none of the aspects can be. Spin all you want an still you won't shake God loose from his own doom.

 

The government is not the Creator either. It just tries to clean up after the mess the Creator made without the Creator's resources.

[Vigile]

Again, yes, I believe that Christianity is grounded in evidence that is testable and verifiable and when someone tries to deviate from truth it is often difficult.

 

You believe. Nice mantra. Show us the evidence.

 

Let's think about this for a minute. There have been many debates on this board over the years examining the veracity of the claims that Jesus did indeed exist. Personally I think the evidence is wanting, but just for fun, let's give you your way here and say a man referred to in the NT existed.

 

Where is the evidence that a dead man came back to life? Where is the evidence that this man was actually god who sent himself to save us from himself? Where is the evidence that god hates sin and that the blood of Jesus covers that sin? I could go on but you get the picture. These are extraordinary claims and the only evidence you have to back them up is the bible, which is basically a conglomeration of books chosen amongst a much larger group of books and everything we know about the claims were written by second, third and more hand witnesses. This wouldn't hold up in traffic court much less a scientific peer review.

 

So no, Christianity is not grounded in testable and verifiable evidence. It is taken purely on faith in a narrow reading of many possible ways to read the conglomeration of books referred to as the bible.

Ordinary claim: Jesus existed

 

Extraordinary claim: Jesus was god, he died, rose again and his blood sacrifice saves people from god's wrath.

 

Christians who come here like to sidetrack the extraordinary claim with the relatively ordinary claim.

 

Final note, gotta give you a hand here LNC, you've survived 13 pages here and haven't yet stormed off in a huff the way so many apologists do. You seem like an intelligent and reasonably educated person. Personally, I think you believe because you want to believe but that's your choice. Plugging all those holes in the dike must be exhausting though. I don't know how you find the energy to keep it up.

[Vigile]

This is the worst form of sophistry and semantic nitpicking. It's true that atheists generally do not believe with 100% certainty that there is no God. But I'm an atheist, and I can say that my certainty is in the high 90s, the very high 90s. But so what? I'm still an atheist because I don't think there is a God and I wouldn't worship God even if there were a God--which is the more important point.

 

Or more simply put, you don't believe because you are not presented with a valid reason to believe. Belief and disbelief are two separate animals.