In And Out Of Faith

[JayL]

That’s quite a tale.

You’ve managed to create a version of Jesus that pleases your senses, where everything is bunnies and roses.

Since you seem to believe Jesus is God, it was Jesus that gave orders to exterminate the Canaanites.

 

What I see is that you’ll do anything to rationalize your beliefs.

 

 

 

LOL. Thank you. You made my day. Well I guess that what Christian preachers do. Make bunnies and roses out of tough reality 2000 years ago. LOL

 

 

Well, there is certainly that aspect to Christianity. But are you saying bunnies and roses have no place in our world? Or Joel Osteen?? LOL LOL

[godsfavoritecolor]

It is better to laugh and let it go.

 

Easy for you to say when you have the key to eternal salvation and you won't share!

[oddbird1963]

JayL,

 

You are a hypocrite and a piss-poor Christian if you have come up with this great "proof" but you won't share it with a bunch of atheists.

 

You could share it and bring unbelievers to Christ who face an eternity in hell because they have rejected the risen Lord. But if you don't, then

1. You are assuming we are too corrupt, selfish and childish to consider it honestly. In other words you are judging us. That makes you a hypocrite for being judgmental.

2. You are replacing God's will with your own thoughts and evaluations of people. If you are a child of god then you are being arrogant and prideful to think that you are that sharp. And proverbs says that God hates a haughty spirit.

3. You are greedy. The only reason to be concerned with intellectual property is A. you want money or B. you want recognition. Who cares who gets the credit? Who cares if you profit from it? You are talking about saving souls. You are putting social recognition and monetary gain ahead of God's work.

 

Mostly, though, I think you are just boasting (another sin in the eyes of your Holy God).

 

All in all, if you don't present it, you're just another lying hypocrite Christian.

 

If you do share it, we'll know just how sharp you really are.

 

The only one who hates hypocrites more than atheists is Jesus. So, if you REALLY believe in him, you're in big trouble.

[JayL]

JayL said

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

Now he says

 

But I have no hope of understanding. Because I couldn't even get thru his incompleteness theorem. I am just a layman probably like most people here.

 

How does a mere layman devise a "proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics."

 

 

Well, I do have confidence in physics ( but not in formal logic. ). I have a master's degree in physics. Yes, I worked my way thru Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics book, etc. About the proof, which I should not have brought it up ( I thought people will just laugh it away. ) I guess the main thing is that it just convinced me a lot better than some probability based argument. I still think it is solid. But there may be better proofs using information theory in public arena. I really think the information theory is the key.

[JayL]

JayL,

 

You are a hypocrite and a piss-poor Christian if you have come up with this great "proof" but you won't share it with a bunch of atheists.

 

You could share it and bring unbelievers to Christ who face an eternity in hell because they have rejected the risen Lord. But if you don't, then

1. You are assuming we are too corrupt, selfish and childish to consider it honestly. In other words you are judging us. That makes you a hypocrite for being judgemental.

2. You are replacing God's will with your own thoughts and evaluations of people. If you are a child of god then you are being arrogant and prideful to think that you are that sharp. And proverbs says that God hates a haughty spirit.

3. You are greedy. The only reason to be concerned with intellectual property is a) you want money or you want recognition. Who cares who gets the credit? Who cares if you profit from it? You are talking about saving souls. You are putting social recognition and monetary gain ahead of God's work.

 

Mostly, though, I think you are just boasting (another sin in the eyes of your Holy God).

 

All in all, if you don't present it, you're just another lying hypocrite Christian.

 

If you do share it, we'll know just how sharp you really are.

 

The only one who hates hypocrites more than atheists is Jesus. So, if you REALLY believe in him, you're in big trouble.

 

 

I don't think it will convince you. It is just something to think about.

[Shyone]

 

Thank you so much for your interest. I appreciate it. I may think about your kind offer. But I am still relatively protective about this as an 'intellectual property'. ( No laughing please ! ) But it is not everyday I come up with something new that I am really happy with. If we knew each other and probably you are a sincere person, yes, I will be happy to tell you. It would be something fascinating to think about. But would this lead to faith in Jesus Christ? Probably not.

 

It is a big topic and I\d rather not post it here. In fact, I am the guilty one because I brought it up. I apologize. For now, we will just talk about non personal stuff.

I can sympathize. I have written a couple of papers regarding problems I saw with the current cosmological model(s), and it's like revealing ones innermost thoughts. When I work very hard to document the sources for a theory, present the ideas and documentation in a flowing format and make a case I feel is invulnerable, it's a pity when people point out the flaws that I had not noticed, or simply disagree based on other information.

 

It's almost like discussing religion.

 

I have a headache at the moment, but I would be interested in how you perceive any current arguments for god's existence. Does anyone sound convincing, or all lacking something? You mentioned that you are not a fan of probability for demonstrating god. Do you have any favorites? Kalaam? Anselm? First Cause? Design?

 

I suppose that what I am asking is, is there any evidence outside of the bible that you think points man in the direction of any kind of god.

[godlessgrrl]

Thank you, Dr. Shyone. Yes, my proof is completely original. And it convinced me enough. It is not based on probability. In fact I worked on this because I am not totally happy with probability approach. They make good cases but the nature is always surprising and to talk about the 'Creator' concept based on likelihood always leaves me with some after taste. My proof is completely different and it is actually closer to information theory approach. It is a deductive approach. That is why I call a 'proof'. However I am reluctant to post it here. Sorry. If I knew you personally I will talk to you in person and you can make up your own mind. But in this kind of discussion board, nah. I am not going to talk about the miracles I have experienced nor my proof that convinced me scientifically. We will just discuss publically known info.

 

So you claim to have proof (via deduction) of the existence of god, but you refuse to share it for personal reasons?

 

If you really have proof that god exists, you should be able to share it with anyone, anywhere - personally, on a message board, on a website, in the scientific community, anywhere. And it should stand up to the inevitable scrutiny that such proofs must bear. It should stand up to skepticism. And it would be probably one of the most important discoveries ever made.

 

But no, you have to protect your precious proof in the interest of preserving your "intellectual property". How incredibly self-serving.

 

And we will just laugh and go on to other topics. Discuss the Bible etc. I am somewhat apologetic now that some people are actually interested. Sorry.

 

What the hell did you expect? Of COURSE people are interested! I may be a diehard skeptic but I wouldn't grill every visiting theist here with those basic questions if I weren't still interested in finding out whether or not a god exists. If somebody's got proof (or as near it as possible), I want to see it.

 

I hope you will forgive me, sir, for believing you a liar and a troll, here only to manipulate us for your own amusement. (Either that, or else you're a Poe; if so, thank you for the practice.) And I hope you will forgive me for refusing to be your plaything one second longer.

 

Good day.

[oddbird1963]

 

I don't think it will convince you. It is just something to think about.

 

If it is a "proof" (your words) then by definition it should convince the reader.

 

If you think that it really is a proof, but it won't convince me personally, then how can you say you aren't judging me or others here who think you who you should share it? Do you have a special dispensation against following the scripture that says, "Judge not that ye be not judged?"

 

If it really isn't a proof, then why did you call it a proof? What were you trying to accomplish by calling it a proof when it is not convincing?

[NotBlinded]

You want to hear the real Biblical truth? You can't love. How can we? We are selfish humans driven buy our lusts. We can't. We don't even have a good conception of God let alone love someone who is invisible. This command by Jesus is like most commands of his - cut off your hand if your right hand tries to sin. Or take up your cross and follow Jesus. Nobody can do all these stuff. They can try but they are likely to fail.

This is a horrible and disgusting way to view humanity. But you know what? You must view it that way in order for Christianity to even work.

 

In the words of Alan Watts:

 

Here is the revelation of God in Christ, in Jesus, and we are supposed to follow his life and example without having the advantage of being the boss's son. Now the tradition of both the Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists represents Jesus to us as a freak, born of a virgin, knowing he is the Son of God, having the power of miracles, knowing that it is impossible to really kill him, because he is to rise again in the end. We do not know that about ourselves at all, but we are asked to take up our cross and follow him then. So what happens is this: We are delivered a gospel that is in fact an impossible religion. It is impossible to follow the way of Christ, and many a Christian has admitted it. "I am a miserable sinner. I fall short of the example of Christ." Christianity has institutionalized guilt as a virtue. Of course you will not come up to Jesus, ever, and therefore you will always be aware of your shortcomings. So, the more shortcomings you feel, the more you are aware of the vast abyss between Christ and yourself...

 

...You will try and fail, and there will always be a greater and greater sense of guilt, and this is the Christianity of most people.

Myth and Religion: The Edited Transcripts

See how that works? They can't let you look at other worldviews that doesn't see humanity as a guilty, worthless, sinner because you would no longer need them. As long as you allow yourself to be subjugated, you will be.

 

And the most important thing to remember...guilt is not a virtue.

 

The only way out is by accepting God's forgiveness in Jesus dying on the cross. Now we are off the hook, in a matter of speaking. I personally summarize the Gospel message as " Jesus did everything. We don't have to do anything. Just believe and buy the insurance, that is all'. But I do thank and love Jesus for this great insurance deal. Yeah, I am putting it so crassly. I apologize. But I think I can talk like this because this is not a Christian forum.

It really doesn't do much good to buy fire insurance when it may be a tornado that takes you. That's the problem with Pascal's wager.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

.

It really doesn't do much good to buy fire insurance when it may be a tornado that takes you. That's the problem with Pascal's wager.

 

Its really more like Peter Griffin's cloud insurance for when the clouds attack. Really no point in insurance for something that is not a threat.

[Michael]

Maybe he knows that his proof might not be enough proof for some people (you will always find someone who will rip off every argument). But his proof is still enough proof for him and he is afraid, that someone could destroy his precious proof right now as he eventually became a xian again. So this proof might be his "insurance police" for a stable xian walk. Or he is just making up nonsense....who knows?

[NotBlinded]

<< However, if the entire Bible is to be taken seriously, the death of Jesus doesn’t save anyone.

It’s not even a valid sacrifice for sin. >>

 

 

As a Christian, I mostly stick to New Testament. There it is real clear. How do you expect people to delve in the Old Testament when they have trouble getting thru the New?? New Testament is a lot closer to modern mentality is far more accessible.

So, ignorance is bliss.

[JayL]

 

 

I would be interested in how you perceive any current arguments for god's existence. Does anyone sound convincing, or all lacking something? You mentioned that you are not a fan of probability for demonstrating god. Do you have any favorites? Kalaam? Anselm? First Cause? Design?

 

I suppose that what I am asking is, is there any evidence outside of the bible that you think points man in the direction of any kind of god.

 

 

Actually I am not too satisfied with philosophy based proofs. What Godel claimed to do - using formal logic is way, way better and that should be the way to go. But of course most people will just not appreciate it at all. I think science based argument is the most fruitful.

 

Like George Lamatre the Catholic priest coming up with the Big Bang solution before Einstein. ( Einstein could not take it emotionally even though his equations said so. ) I mean, that is amazing. That is something to ponder. And now discovery of DNA, people have to deal with genetics from information theory perspective and that is really exciting to Christians. That could be the real solution behind evolution vs. intelligent design debate. And pursuing anthropic principle is not all that bad either.

 

So I am definitely for science based ideas and am not too hot for philosophical arguments of past era.

[JayL]

 

It really doesn't do much good to buy fire insurance when it may be a tornado that takes you. That's the problem with Pascal's wager.

 

 

Very good point there. Reminds me of some Chinese people offering money and food to different gods - just in case! LOL

 

Why do you think Chinese are so good in business?? It is all based on risk control! LOL

[JayL]

Maybe he knows that his proof might not be enough proof for some people (you will always find someone who will rip off every argument). But his proof is still enough proof for him and he is afraid, that someone could destroy his precious proof right now as he eventually became a xian again. So this proof might be his "insurance police" for a stable xian walk. Or he is just making up nonsense....who knows?

 

 

 

You have a great point there !! This is the lion's den. I gotta fight to remain a live Christian!! LOL

 

 

Anyhow, thank you so much for many kind comments and being so civilized and thoughtful. I really appreciate it. Now I am getting addicted to this board.

 

Anyhow thank you and very best wishes to you. I will be back later.

[Ouroboros]

Well, I did send my proof to Dennis Prager thinking he may appreciate it. But so far, I haven't heard back. He probably thought, 'Oh another crazy email' LOL.

Damn. I'm curious about your proof, so I'll guess I'll never see it.

 

Well, at this point, I may try to contact people like Dinesh Souza or Varghese. But there are similar arguments based on informational theory IN PUBLIC that look promising to me.

So I can take a look at their proofs and get a feeling for what you did?

 

Perhaps the best deductive proof may be one constructed by Kurt Godel based on the good ole Kalaam argument. ( He was a pious Lutheran ) But I have no hope of understanding. Because I couldn't even get thru his incompleteness theorem. I am just a layman probably like most people here.

I haven't seen Godel's proof.

 

Are you saying that his deductive Kalam proof is without warrants or assumptions? That's a bold claim if that's the case. It might be deductive on parts, but every argument or proof I have ever seen is based on some form of inductive premise.

 

But apparently, Godel used to talk a lot with Einstein towards their old age about how time is just an illusion. Isn't that fascinating?? I bet a number of Christian thinker would be keen on that idea. ( How does God know what is going to happen in the future, etc. ? )

Yeah. How does God know that? Is God fully prescient?

[NotBlinded]

The reason I could not follow Santa Claus logic was that we are talking about Pascal's wager. Belief in Santa is something different. Now, we can apply Pascal's wager to Islam which is a major religion that try to shape people's mind. And my response was that the cost was much higher there than in Christianity - and the payoff quite questionable, to say the least, given the character of Mohammed the rapist.

 

Now applying Pascal's wager to Christianity as Pascal has done is relatively rational, in my view. Jesus Christ is a great person. He made a huge claim. But the cost ( in America at least ) is quite low. So I think it makes sense as an insurance - just in case what Jesus says is true. What if hell is true? That is horrible thought! I'd rather be looked down by intellectual class and sleep better at night - knowing that I am covered. According to Christian theology, I don't have to worry about hell. But intellectuals do even though they deny it! That peace of mind is worth something!

You do realize that you have just freely admitted that there is a "cost" to this "free" salvation don't you? As others have told you over and over, this is a killer on Pascal's wager.

 

If salvation was offered by Santa, it would then be truly free wouldn't it?

[NotBlinded]

.

It really doesn't do much good to buy fire insurance when it may be a tornado that takes you. That's the problem with Pascal's wager.

 

Its really more like Peter Griffin's cloud insurance for when the clouds attack. Really no point in insurance for something that is not a threat.

Yes, I like that metaphor better.

[par4dcourse]

 

So I am definitely for science based ideas and am not too hot for philosophical arguments of past era.

 

And yet I, being somewhat slow to grasp the obvious at times, have yet to hear any arguments from you.

[agnosticator]

If salvation was offered by Santa, it would then be truly free wouldn't it?

 

Free cookies and candy, more toys than you could ever play with, and a surprise every morning when you wake up! Santa's an awesome God! Weeeeeeeeeee!!!

[NotBlinded]

If salvation was offered by Santa, it would then be truly free wouldn't it?

 

Free cookies and candy, more toys than you could ever play with, and a surprise every morning when you wake up! Santa's an awesome God! Weeeeeeeeeee!!!

Indeed and the only thing that happens when you're bad is that you don't get these things. You do, however, get a bag of coal. At least you are not the coal itself!

[Sconnor]

<< What Islam teaches about peace and what Christianity teaches about peace makes no difference until you answer why you think the Christian God exists and not Allah. You haven't dealt with how you determined one was true and the other is not true. >>

 

 

 

Actually my proof based on physics and mathematics does go into this distinction and it makes some headway here. I did conclude that the God of the Bible is likely to be real. Allah of the Koran is NOT supported by my proof. So I am relatively sure that the God of the Bible is the real one.

 

Another way of saying is that the God of the Bible is consistent with my proof of God's existence.

 

Bahawahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha!

 

It looks like JayL is taking the kindergarten approach: "I know the answer but I'm not going to tell you -- nanny, nanny boo-boo."

 

There is no doubt, in my mind, that you do NOT have any credible evidence -- based on physics and mathematics -- that proves the existence of the bible-god.

 

You are just blowing smoke up our collective asses.

 

You are just another christian asshole; wasting our time, by positing outrageous claims, you refuse to support.

 

Look; look; I can make outrageous claims, too. I can prove god does not exist based on science, physics and mathematics. See, that was easy. Now I see why you present information like that -- it's the lazy mans way of presenting arguments while pretending to have an air of credibility.

 

Well you have NO credibility -- you're the equivalent of a scientologist who makes the crazy-ass claim that humans have been possessed by aliens called Thetans or you are the equivalent of an insane man who claims people from the government (he can only see) are using him to decipher documents to save the world. You and the insane examples, above are the same -- they make insane, absurd bullshit claims they can NOT substantiate.

 

Either put up or shut up.

 

--S.

[centauri]

That’s quite a tale.

You’ve managed to create a version of Jesus that pleases your senses, where everything is bunnies and roses.

Since you seem to believe Jesus is God, it was Jesus that gave orders to exterminate the Canaanites.

 

What I see is that you’ll do anything to rationalize your beliefs.

 

LOL. Thank you. You made my day. Well I guess that what Christian preachers do. Make bunnies and roses out of tough reality 2000 years ago. LOL

 

Well, there is certainly that aspect to Christianity. But are you saying bunnies and roses have no place in our world? Or Joel Osteen?? LOL LOL

False advertising doesn't take the place of reality and peddling make believe and wishful thinking as reality doesn't elevate anyone.

That's the problem.

But that's what Christianity thrives on.

It doesn't hold itself to the high moral standards it claims to embody.

[Guest ephymeris]

 

LOL. Thank you. You made my day. Well I guess that what Christian preachers do. Make bunnies and roses out of tough reality 2000 years ago. LOL

 

 

Well, there is certainly that aspect to Christianity. But are you saying bunnies and roses have no place in our world? Or Joel Osteen?? LOL LOL

 

Is it just me or do the fundy trolls "LOL" at such inappropriate points? I see nothing in this post that merits a double LOL. Maybe I just don't get the humor of christards?

[florduh]

Maybe I just don't get the humor of christards?

Another clue that it's a put on. This guy can't be for real. It's all too bizarre, even for a Christard.

 

(Why does "Christard" keep getting highlighted in spell check? It's a word, isn't it? I'm pretty sure.)