The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[Az]

Sorry, Stupidity should be corrected.

[Robert Plomp]

the same old "I am superior" behavior among atheists / anti-christians never fails to entertain me.

c'mon Azazel, tell me more about how stupid I am, compared to your superior view on life.

And it's ok if you copy/paste your opinion from others.
It's easier to go witht he flow than developping your own thoughts.

I'm watching, and I'll applaude if you're entertaining enough!

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I hate to break it to you, but there's no difference between Christianity and other religions.

Pardon me?!?!

I think you mean that Christianity is no more true than other religions. All religions have their own unique elements that make them different from other religions, though, do they not?

If you want to debate the merits of Biblical literalism, check out these Bible Contradictions.

There are several counterarguments one could give to many claims of "contradiction", but they often require taking the passage at less than face value. One can hold that only the original text was infallible, but this requires that any teaching based on a translation is suspect, a view not held by many American fundamentalists, as far as I've seen. It's an interesting perspective, though. (For example, what if the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis actually meant "an unimaginably long, but complete, period of time" rather than "a day", i.e., the translator made the wrong choice?)

I think that the most obvious argument against literalism is that there's no compelling reason to believe it. Why should we expect that everthing written in the Bible, or any holy text, should be literally true? Personally, it seems to me a sort of religious perversion to put one's faith in a book, or a pope, or whatever, rather than the actual deity/deities you believe in. That is to say, faith in some fallible, human authority could cloud your understanding of God, rather than assisting it.

I, too, find it hard to believe that God would give us brains and then expect us not to use them. Moreover, it seems to me that if an omnipotent being wanted people to believe in a certain religious message, He could quite easily demonstate to them which one is the correct one, rather than forcing them to guess. Yet, strangely, we do not see God calling a press conference to tell people which religion to believe. This requires a rather less simplistic religious understanding on the part of many theists, IMO, if they wish for their beliefs to remain consistent with reality.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Faith is a psychological/neurochemical phenomenon, and there is no reason to think anything other. Religion is nothing but a play on loopholes in the human psyche.

So is love. What's your point?

[Rogan Josh]

Cybershy: just ignore them - they are only trolling. The don't want a rational debate - they have already been brainwashed into their closed-mind attitudes and you won't shift them by posting here. Just them them have their merry atheist jerk-off session uninterupted. (SD seems to be the only non-christian here with any scientific integrity and no mindless prejudices.)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
(SD seems to be the only non-christian here with any scientific integrity and no mindless prejudices.)

I thought that he was Christian.

[NeOmega]

Doh, I read the title of the thread and thought I might finally meet jesus and his love. Instead it's just another thread for religion bashing.

My God, wherefore art thou?

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Verto
How offensive.

Try to have a little respect for another's beliefs.

Exactly which parts of this thread do you find offensive?

If someone believes in something that you feel is blatantly false, does "disrespecting" that belief mean

1. Recognizing it as nonsense, or
2. Calling it such?

I would maintain that 2 is a perfectly acceptable form of behaviour. (1, of course, is involuntary. At least it is for me.) I don't think that we should be required to "respect" beliefs in this way. I'm not even convinced that all people deserve respect, much less ideas.

[Lorizael]

Cybershy (First off, I am not proselytizing), what would convince you that God did not exist. What argument could anyone here make that would prove to you that the universe is totally natural and no supernatural power exists?

If the answer to your question is nothing, then there is no point in a discussion taking place, as a discussion requires logic and reasoning and an opinion that cannot be changed, even in the face of logic and reasoning, will not ever be changed.

Then again I can reverse the question for the atheists here, what would convince you all that there is in fact a God?

If nothing, then stop arguing.

Personally, I've attempted to reject the cultural beliefs thrown at me by every source (except my family) since birth. This way, I can hopefully look at the world in a rational manner.

Doing this, I've come to the conclusion that there is little evidence for the existence of a God. Because of that, I do not let the knowledge that I cannot prove that there isn't a God (and that God may in fact exist) affect my life.

The only piece of evidence (for me) that would make believe in some sort of higher deity, is the fact that the universe doesn't really have an origin at this point. But I don't know enough higher science to really make an informed opinion on the subject. Though I'm also of the opinion that scientists don't really have enough knowledge and information yet to say anything concrete as far as the origin of the universe is concerned.

Welp, I think I'll go back to lurking for awhile now. Haven't said that much in awhile.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Verto
How offensive.

Try to have a little respect for another's beliefs.

You'll find it is just too close to the bone for your tastes. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And SD, yes, so is love. What's your point? I've never been in love either

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


To quote Friedrich Nietzsche: 'A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum will demonstrate that faith proves nothing'. Faith is a psychological/neurochemical phenomenon, and there is no reason to think anything other. Religion is nothing but a play on loopholes in the human psyche.

Nietzche died in a lunatic asylum, so he knew this from first hand experience.

[Provost Harrison]

Hehe, that's very true

[Alexander's Horse]

Some old uni graffiti:

God is dead.

Nietzsche


Nietzsche is dead.

God.

[Felch]

God is Nietzsche.

Dead.

I suppose it doesn't work quite as well.

[Bereta_Eder]

They' re just both dead.
Allegedly.

[Caesar the Great]

the bible is a great work of fiction

no different from greek mythology, islam or tolkein's triology for that matter

man was alive long before god existed

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Then again I can reverse the question for the atheists here, what would convince you all that there is in fact a God?

If nothing, then stop arguing.

Um, that doesn't make much sense to me. "What would convince you that 1 = 2? If nothing, don't argue against it."

If a claim is not falsifiable, that does not make it false, nor does it mean that it cannot be proven. It does take it out of the realm of the physical sciences.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Some old uni graffiti:

God is dead.

Nietzsche


Nietzsche is dead.

God.

Hey, that's my sig!

"uni"?

[DRoseDARs]

"Uni" is short for 'university' I believe; think: written inside the walls of bathroom stalls.

[JohnM2433]

Oh, yeah, that makes sense. In fact, I first saw the thing in a stall at my own university. It's just so cute...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by JohnM2433

Um, that doesn't make much sense to me. "What would convince you that 1 = 2? If nothing, don't argue against it."

If a claim is not falsifiable, that does not make it false, nor does it mean that it cannot be proven. It does take it out of the realm of the physical sciences.

My point is that if no logical argument can convince an atheist of the existence of God, then this discussion is futile. As my Ancient History teacher said, "Atheists are some of the most religious people I know." Faith is not just for those that believe in God. Some atheists believe that there isn't even a possibility that a God could exist, and will not listen to any evidence to the contrary.

I try not to be so close-minded. If you can show me God, I'll believe. The difficulty is that religion relies on faith, which does not need proof. Sadly I cannot act without proof.

[JohnM2433]

But what if there is no logical argument that proves the existence of God? Even if there is one, an atheist presumably wouldn't be able to tell you what it was, or he/she wouldn't be an atheist. It sounds to me like you're saying that someone who can't tell you what evidence would disprove his/her belief has no right to argue for it; but in the case of logical arguments, if the person knew of such evidence, he/she would presumably not hold that belief.

You can conceive of physical evidence that could discredit a claim without actually witnessing that evidence, but you can't come up with a purely logical argument against a claim that could potentially, but does not currently, disprove it, because you can immediately evaluate the argument and see whether or not it constitutes a disproof. Arguments aren't something you have to wait to witness in the physical world; unlike physical evidence, an argument constitutes good evidence if it's valid, not if it ever happens, and, unlike whether an event ever occurs in the universe, logical validity is determinable right away. One can show that something is empirically falsifiable without actually disproving it, but one cannot show that something is logically falsifiable without actually proving it false.

Are you saying that atheists must tell how one could empirically falsify the non-existence of God in order to argue for it? Isn't it possible that no physical evidence could even theoretically falsify the non-existence of God, but it is nonetheless true (and thus cannot be logically falsified)? If so, why shouldn't people be allowed to argue for it without providing a method of falsification? If not, why not?

Now do you see what I'm saying?

But personally, if God came down from the heavens and spoke to me, I would find that pretty convincing. Satisfied?

[Lorizael]

Yes, actually, I am satisfied. Because there are some atheists that, even when faced with almighty God coming down from the heavens and greeting them, would still not believe in God. So I'm just saying that in an argument such as this one, both sides need to be open-minded.

I doubt very much, however, that God will pay any of us a visit any time soon.

[JohnM2433]

Or even in the case of physical evidence, one could say "There might be something that would convince me I'm wrong, if it happened, but I can't presently imagine anything that would do so." Does that discredit one's claim? In fact, I'd think that it's still a good testable theory so long as it's falsifiable, even if the individual proposing it can't provide the means of falsification.

As I indicated above, if God openly communicated with us the way we communicate with each other, I think most atheists would probably concede that they are wrong. Thus atheism is indeed empirically falsifiable. But it doesn't matter whether the atheist arguing for it can tell you how it could be falsified, IMO.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lorizael

"Atheists are some of the most religious people I know."

So true

THE DESIRE FOR GOD

The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.

But this "intimate and vital bond of man to God" can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

"Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice." Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, "an upright heart", as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

You are great, O Lord, and greatly to be praised: great is your power and your wisdom is without measure. And man, so small a part of your creation, wants to praise you: this man, though clothed with mortality and bearing the evidence of sin and the proof that you withstand the proud.

Despite everything, man, though but a small a part of your creation, wants to praise you. You yourself encourage him to delight in your praise, for you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.

For you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you

[Wernazuma III]

It's right that believing that there is no "unmoved mover" or no one who was not created (which is a nice hermeneutical circle: I can always assume someone to have created the creator...) is as little based on logical as believing in a God/highest being. Yet, after trying without success to solve the issue, to say "There's nothing." or "I don't know what, but there's something." is MUCH MORE logical than saying "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " and then add hundreds of unprovable and contradictory pages which without any special reason have been declared to be "holy" and "true"...

[JohnM2433]

One argument for a Creator is that the universe began at a specific time, and so must have a cause which preceded it, but God always existed, and so does not. But since God has no more reason to have existed forever than the universe does to have begun some finite time ago, the same underlying problem still applies, or so it seems to me.

That is to say, there's no more reason, as far as I can see, for an event (i.e., the creation of the universe) to require a cause any more than an ongoing process (i.e., the existence of God), whether it had a begining or not. I can imagine nothing ever existing, and ask why that isn't the case, as easily as I can imagine the universe never begining, and ask why it did.

[Japher]

I agree with you there JohnM.

Even if a point 0 existed in which no entropy, matter, or energy existed something would of had to make the something from nothing... This would rebuke science.

Saying that the beginning is a result of a god is just as good of a theory as anything else I have ever heard. Even though you have to ask; where was god before he created something? Nowhere?

What about if you ignore the linearity of time? Everyone seems to assume that time is linearly progressive. What if that is not true?

A universe in which the beginning and the end coexist, both in space, energy, and time?

Still. What exists outside that universe?

There will always be questions.

Do you feel that the more you know the less you realize you don't know? Can a being realy be omniscient? I think no. Yet, this does not mean that a being could not create a universe...hypothetically.

Makes one ask is nothing something? Even if it is everything?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought that he was Christian.

LOL






edit: this part is missing:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
(SD seems to be the only non-christian here with any scientific integrity and no mindless prejudices.)

Ro explain myself a little...

Therefore scientific integrity and no mindless prejudices are only Christian qualities for Dino ...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Japher
Even though you have to ask; where was god before he created something? Nowhere?

You mean before God created space and time? I guess, these categories don't apply in this case, whether there is a God or not.

OK, suggesting an "ultimate cause" or the "unmoved mover" as the outcome of a logical argument, taking natural science into account, is a rational approach. Accepting a whole scripture which has been written by men and has been handed down from for a long time as "written by God" has no logic at all. Saying that the "ultimate cause" is subject of moods and has a personality and a will is not logical, but simple anthropomorphic thinking.