Christians unfairly judged by God

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 2:09 pm

How am I able to acknowlege that other people in the world experience the exact same things that I do without me personally being in their shoes?

How are you able to suggest they experience exactly what I experience given you're not in their shoes?

You ask me to acknowledge something that is a difficult effort to verify.

I would say that I've been exposed to more varying viewpoints and philosophies and your every day joe. I've taken classes to that effect out of personal interest and I have day to day friends and co-workers who vigorously argue their faith in Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Self Reliance, Humanism, and Baha'i.

These things are interesting and a hobby for me.

Even with my friends' vigorous professions, I am sure that I made a correct choice, because my choice is verified by results. I bet on God. He delivers.

Call me crazy, but never doubt that God is able to change someone's life for the better.

As far as you shying away from discussing religion because people fall back on their faith. I AGREE! People fall back on their faith all the time.

I ask you to consider that even the self determinist falls back on his faith,,,, in himself when discussing these things.

I also ask you to consider the point of a discussion such as this is not to convince me to change but rather to share your perspective for others to consider. There is value in that.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 8, 2003, 2:35 pm

How am I able to acknowlege that other people in the world experience the exact same things that I do without me personally being in their shoes?

Well for a start we can do away with that "everyone is unique" bullshit and also the "you cannot truly understand another person" nonsense and just assume that people are the damn same (broadly) and will experience similar emotional reactions to given experiences

That's what I do

Anyone who tells you you're unique and speshal and nobody understands you is trying to sell you something. We're all the fookin same so deal with it

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 8, 2003, 2:54 pm

Fairweather asks me to acknowledge that a Muslim experiences the exact same things I do when I communicate with God.

How can you be sure that our experiences are the same?

To assume its all the same requires judgement on sparse information.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2003, 12:58 am

Atokal wrote:Xyun, you once denounced people for having shallow views on serious topics. If your views were a puddle of water I dare say there would be enough liquid to quench the thirst of an ant.

What is this, bait? This topic is as serious to me as intelligence and logic are to you. Religion is a fucking crutch, those who need it use it, the rest of us throw it out the window.

I feel very fortunate in that I'm a genius and don't need mythology and superstition to explain/guide my life.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 9, 2003, 1:21 am

While I won't boast as to how high my IQ is I will propose a question

What happend at the Big Bang?

Mind you I hold that science has the right explination, as I have said before many of the explinations in the Bible (particullary the OT) are meant for Children or someone with the mentality of a goat hearder. That's not bad it's just who God was trying to explain things too at the time.

So it's my understanding that we can get to 10 to the negative 38th power seconds before the actual occurance ( I may be wrong on the actual number but it's close). So what caused it? What started it all out of nothing causing matter and energy to begin expanding, eventually creating our Universe.

I propose that God did it. No it's not the 7 day stuff in the Bible, we know it took billions of years but again you can't explain that to goat hearders. If God did not cause it, does anyone have a scientific explination?

Food for thought!

Cheers!
Marb

PS- Xyun, did you ever get a chance to read "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" - Kierkegaard? As I'm sure I have said before he definitely shaped some my views on Religion and Existentialism. Not an easy read but I think you would find it very intersting in comparison to some of Nietzsche's work, they are very much two sides of the same coin.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2003, 2:38 am

Of course I don't know who/what/how the big bang was caused. But if it were a being I still feel no need to worship she/he/it. Nor do I think it has any kind of active role in my life/lifestyle.

I've read much of Kierkegaard but not the specific post you mentioned. I agree with some of his existentialist theories, but for the most part, he was a confused individual. Not being able to console his religion with logic he came up with that infamous "Leap of Faith" philosophy. Makes me sick to my stomach.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 3:54 am

Ever wonder why faith is hard for people?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2003, 5:26 am

not sure what you mean, Adex. But if you are asking why it is difficult for me to accept faith, the answer is that reality interjects. Faith=blind acceptance. Those that adhere to logic and/or are inclined to skepticism have difficulty with the idea of faith. Well, most are, others are more comfortable with the struggle of truth vs. myth within themselves than they are with the idea that god does not exist. They betray truth for myth because it is easier to do so.

I refuse to accept any idea without the evidence of its truth. For example, I refused to believe that Iraq had WMDs until I saw the evidence. In the end, I was right, as I am on the existence of god.

It feels good to always be right.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 9, 2003, 7:30 am

Marbus wrote:While I won't boast as to how high my IQ is I will propose a question

What happend at the Big Bang?

Mind you I hold that science has the right explination, as I have said before many of the explinations in the Bible (particullary the OT) are meant for Children or someone with the mentality of a goat hearder. That's not bad it's just who God was trying to explain things too at the time.

So it's my understanding that we can get to 10 to the negative 38th power seconds before the actual occurance ( I may be wrong on the actual number but it's close). So what caused it? What started it all out of nothing causing matter and energy to begin expanding, eventually creating our Universe.

I propose that God did it. No it's not the 7 day stuff in the Bible, we know it took billions of years but again you can't explain that to goat hearders. If God did not cause it, does anyone have a scientific explination?

Food for thought!

Cheers!
Marb

PS- Xyun, did you ever get a chance to read "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" - Kierkegaard? As I'm sure I have said before he definitely shaped some my views on Religion and Existentialism. Not an easy read but I think you would find it very intersting in comparison to some of Nietzsche's work, they are very much two sides of the same coin.

This is all based on the assumption that there was a beginning (and there will be an end). We (think we) know that SUM MATTER + SUM ENERGY is constant so what do we base this assumption on?

PS The world is flat.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 11:02 am

Faith as I see it, is to to future like memory is to the past.

Memory is an idea pulled from the past.

Faith is a assumption placed in the future.

I have faith the sun will come up. I have faith that the guy passing me on a two lane highway won't hit me. I have faith that if a make a credit card purchase, I won't be stolen from.

We use faith all the time.

If you consider that the universe is constructed in part with the dimension of time, matter is just a stationary form of energy. How you define matter, well it doesn't change much through, you guessed it, time.

If time is a dimension like anything else then it was created along with the universe. If time is a creation then that means that God must be independant of time, just as he must be independent of the universe. I suppose from his perspective he's got the entire universe spread out on his table like the ultimate shiney and multifaceted conversation piece.

Now we as humans don't experience our lives in a time-removed manner. We experience our life one tick and tock at a time. If you took the whole universe including time and spread out into something like a loaf of bread, we'd be experiencing the universive by sliding from on slice of bread to another, our entire lives would be a like a thread running through an sequence of bread slices.

From this perspective it makes sense that God looking at the whole loaf might know how our particular lives will end, begin and transistion, all at a glance.

If God can see our whole existance at a glance then having faith in him knowing what's best for us is an act of common sense.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 11:20 am

faith that the sun will "come up" is different than faith that there is a particular divine entity.

Regardless the "truth" of either scenario is irrelevant to whether or not one has faith or knowledge of them or not.

We know we will see the sun again in 24 hours not only because we saw it today. But because we know that the sun is a star, and that the earth is a planet that orbits that star. We know that orbital bodies rotate on their axis, and as a result a fixed point on the surface of an orbital body will experiece photoperiods that can be calculated to the exact milisecond (if not smaller) based on the lattitude and longitude of that fixed position as well as the portion of the orbital journey (day of the year) that the planet is currently embarked upon.

Without being even more didactic, the point is, there is a mountain of independently verifiable evidence describing the behavior of planets, particularly this one, and it really does not require "faith" at all to be confident the sun will "come up" tomorrow.

There are scenarios where the sun will not "come up" tomorrow, but in all of them you will be dead so it is irrelevant. If you are alive, you can irrefutably say that the sun will "come up" tomorrow, because that means the earth is still spinning. And if the earth is still spinning, you'll see the sun again in 24 hours (unless it is winter in a polar region).

While it may be convenient to say that your faith in god is like your faith in astrophysics, they are not the same thing. Astrophysics is independently verifiable.

It is a body of knowledge that is subject to test, which religion is not. There is no empirical evidence of any kind to suggest there is anything like a soul or any other glimpse into a 'spirit world'.

There are simply people's anecdotal accounts of emotional experiences they have had, or hallucinations of statues crying, etc.

That doesnt mean there isnt a god. But there is no verifiable proof that god exists, therefore faith in god is not optional if you choose to be religious. Faith is all you have.

Faith is not required to know that the sun will come up.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2003, 11:28 am

My brain hurts.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 11:30 am

I have faith that God will respond, because he has responded to me in the past.

I have faith that the sun will rise, because it has risen every day I cared to check on it.

It's nothing complicated.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2003, 11:32 am

I have faith that Atokal buttfucks Hammer every night.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 11:47 am

BTW how's Starwars Xyun?

I know off topic but I'm curious.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 9, 2003, 11:56 am

See, being a person of faith I actually tend to agree with the "Leap/Knight of Faith" theories.

Anyway it really boils down to personal experience. I have faith because I believe that I have see and felt God's presence and interaction before. It could be argued of course that those feelings were to do a chemical reaction in my brain based upon what I wanted to believe was happening.

My most profoud experience was when I was 15. I was innertubing on a snow covered hill with 5 other people. We had two HUGE innertubes. On what was eventually the last run all I remember was telling this moron not to drag his feet as he was steering us into a... TREE! I was at the center on the bottom and took the full impact with the right side of my face. Broken jaw, 2 skull fractures in the front and one in the back. I was in a Coma for aprox 18 hours, during which time they did numerous X-Rays and other tests, unsure if I would come out of it or not.

Also during this time, as I was active in a number of different church related activities, there were at least 3 Ministers, a couple of Priests and numberous other individuals praying for my recovery. I eventually woke up to a barraige of people asking me ten million questions. Due to the fractures being on both the front and the back the skull was able to expand and I suffered no brain damage. However I was informed the next morning that I would have to have metal poles drilled into my face to assist in the reconstructive surgery. Later that day I went back for more X-rays and found out that I had awoken while still on the Hill and fought off a number of individuals trying to strap me down for the Ambulence. They also informed me that during the period I was calling on God for help... not just screaming help me but almost prayer like. As I can remember none of this I have to take their word for what happened on the hill, my brain has blocked out the memories.

However the next morning the Dr. arrived again in the room with a very puzzled look on his face and a handfull of X-Rays. Somehow the bones on the right side of my face had moved back into position. The X-Rays taken less than 24 hours apart were drastically different. He nor none of the other Physicians had any explination as they had never seen something like this happen. Because they moved back into place I suffered no deformaties and only had to have my jaw wired shut to correct all that happened.

Say what you want, but I believe without a doubt that God answered my prayers and those of others. You could say in some ways I actually have proof with the X-Rays but none is needed. Over the course of a few hours my near future life went from one of multiple surgeries to almost nothing. Praise the Lord! This experience is not why I'm a Chrisitian as I was saved a few years before. However it did have a profound impact on my life and thought.

Cheers!
Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 11:57 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:I have faith that God will respond, because he has responded to me in the past.

I have faith that the sun will rise, because it has risen every day I cared to check on it.

It's nothing complicated.

you are right, it is extremely simple. the difference is the former requires faith whereas the latter does not. You can couch them using similar vocabulary to make them appear to be parallel statements. They are not. Moreover, i would suggest that you try to simplify them to the extreme specifically to blur the distinction between them, because it therefore supports your case.

You listed what you perceive are gods response to you (which they may be) in the past, but because you think you got a job because you prayed for it doesnt mean you did. But you must say from an objective analysis that it is possible that the job you got was due to a more simple explanation

which scenario is more probable?

1. Adex applies for a job. Adex prays. God hears prayer. Hiring manager goes over resumes. God influences hiring manager. manager hires Adex.

2. Adex applies for a job. Hiring manager goes over resumes. Manager hires Adex because he was the best applicant.

I would believe it was divine intervention if you got a phone call from a guy about a job you never applied for =).

I am not trying to belittle you at all. I dont want to come across that way. I am just trying to illustrate there are alternative explanations that are plausible to illustrate the difference between faith in god and what you call faith in physics.

Now in science it is true there are often competing ideas to explain complex phenomena. That does not mean that science doesnt work.

Just as what i have said above doesnt mean God didnt have a hand in your job. However, you have to admit there are other possible explanations as to why you got your job, which do not involve God. YOu have chosen to believe that prayer and God played a part, based on your experience, based on your upbringing, etc. It may have been the correct choice. But you dont, and unfortunately cannot ever truly know.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 9, 2003, 12:18 pm

I would believe it was divine intervention if you got a phone call from a guy about a job you never applied for

This happened to me once. I needed money, but hadn't begun my job search. Phone rang and someone wanted me to work for them. Friend of a friend of one of my instructors at school and my name found it's way back to the employer as a potential hire.

I took the job and worked for them for 3 years. Pretty cool stuff! I was doing Airport lighting systems electronic and mechanical design (PAPI/VASI/Tower Control Panels etc) through my late high school/early college years. Did work for Riyadh, Tulsa, Miami Intl airports. Not bad - my National Honor Society brother was working the grill at McDonalds.

Years before I accepted Christ, but something that makes you think.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 12:21 pm

How about colon cancer?

Doctors find a malignant cyst above the colon of a kid in my old church.

The kid goes to the hospital, they take the scans, its there on Monday.

The church gets together to pray for a safe operation.

Tuesday comes around, the doctors prepare for operation, they take another scan, the cyst is gone, just disappeared. We're talking about something the size of a walnut going poof within 24 hours.

Most of the time if you push it, you can rationalize away God's intervention. Sometimes it you have to go to such extremes to explain away God's work that the extreme explaination is more of a leap of faith than just saying, "God responds."

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 12:27 pm

the point is Adex that nobody knows why that cyst disappeared.

I'm not saying God didnt take it away.

But maybe it was a misdiagnosis.

Maybe sometimes, very rarely, through mechanisms not considered cysts appear to "just go away".

The point is that you dont know why the cyst went away. The doctor doesnt know why the cyst went away.

You CHOOSE to believe that it is because you prayed for it to go away. This of course is in your best interest because it reinforces your actions as the right course.

I'm sure a lot of people who get cysts in their colon pray for them to go away. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of them only go away because the person had it surgically removed.

we can talk about specific cases, but that is irrelevant. Each specific cause you bring up will still require the same leap of faith to interpret divine action.

Both you and I will tend to subconciously interpret outcomes of situations in a manner that is consistent with our chosen worldview. You'll believe that God removed the cyst. I'll believe that (from the information you presented) there is no way to konw why the cyst disappeared. This is an inherent weakness in most people, that we prefer to reinforce our beliefs than to truly openly interpret situations that may challenge them.

I make no claims to be different than anybody else in this regard. I do try to make an effort to really consider making reasoned interpretations of events though. In my opinion, this approach over the arc of my life will lead me to a more accurate understanding of my relationship to the world around me. Now that is my leap of faith

. I use the word faith because i understand that there is at least (what is most economically described as) a fair degree of randomness to events, such that i could end up very right or very wrong on the whole - an outlier if you will. My "leap of faith" is more accuratly described as a "hope" that I will not be an outlier, but i understand that is a possibility, though not a probability (assuming my assumptions are correct and that my brain is not malfunctioning!)

Especially if my brain doesnt work right. I think the fundamental thing that all people need to understand, regardless if they are religious or if they are not, is that as observers we have a particular problem. That problem is we only have our sensory input to make decisions from. And while that input is for the most part very reliable, it is not 100% accurate. You have to always understand that your perceptions of events are not always to be equated to a videotaped piece of evidence

. Moreover, your memory of that event is not always formed or retrieved accurately.

That's my tangent for this thread anyways =).

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 9, 2003, 12:33 pm

Xyun wrote:My brain hurts.

Some genious

The cause of the Big Bang depends on your assumptions about the cosmos, namely if it's a closed or open cycle.

The closed cycle theory holds that at some point, gravitation will halt the expansion of the universe, and all matter and energy will begin to coalesce back upon itself. Eventually, every bit will accumulate and reform the "ur-particle," as physicists like to call it, and it will be stable for like a nanosecond, then another Big Bang will happen, and another universe will be formed. So in this theory, there is no beginning or end, just a constantly repeating cycle of explosion, expansion, contraction, explosion.

The open cycle theory holds that the universe will expand forever. This theory has two implications: 1) that without outside influence, entropy will win and 2) there was a creation point. At first these two ideas seem contradictory, but if it's the nature of the universe to be cool and dark, then some outside influence had to either create the ur-particle, or squish the already existing matter into it (the hand of God).

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 12:45 pm

All I'm saying Voronwe, is that some profound things in life are very simple, so simple that we doubt them and construct all types of crazy stuff to imperically explain them away.

Impericism is wrong tool for the job if you want to measure God.

To do so works you back to measuring wind with a ruler.

Rejecting miracles of God is similar to a caveman rejecting the concept of the number 12, just because he didn't have the fingers to count it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 12:49 pm

your second statement is bogus masteen.

There is no way to assert with any sort of definitiveness that an outside 'force' was at all necessary to create the "ur-particle" state or induce that state into an expansive universe. You can make a compelling case for that perhaps. But since the physics of matter in that state are totally different, and really totally unknown, we really can only offer conjecture.

And with conjecture, it is always critical to qualify it appropriately.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 12:52 pm

or perhaps Adex, you can't measure God because he doesnt exist.

You cannot verify the existence of something by saying that I simply dont have the appropriate tools to measure it. Therefor it exists.

it may exist, something i have never denied.

the problem that, you acknowledge above, is that it is impossible to verify its existence. Which for you is not a problem. For me it is.

If there is a god, hey that's how he made me. And i'm pretty sure if there is a god, he'd not only understand my skepticism, but appreciate it. Otherwise he wouldnt have made me this way, right?

i dont deny that it is possible for God to exist. I merely hold that i have no *reason* to believe he exists.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » July 9, 2003, 1:05 pm

Your analogies are inaccurate.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 1:13 pm

Burke wrote:Your analogies are inaccurate.

whose analogies?

and why are they inaccurate?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 9, 2003, 1:16 pm

Voronwë wrote:your second statement is bogus masteen.

There is no way to assert with any sort of definitiveness that an outside 'force' was at all necessary to create the "ur-particle" state or induce that state into an expansive universe. You can make a compelling case for that perhaps. But since the physics of matter in that state are totally different, and really totally unknown, we really can only offer conjecture.

And with conjecture, it is always critical to qualify it appropriately.

Hence the reason I called them both theories.

Personally, I believe the universe is contained in a giant sphere, resting on the backs of 6 giant elepahants, which in turn are standing on the back of an even bigger turtle.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 9, 2003, 1:19 pm

my apologies for misreading then masteen =).

i like turtles!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 1:28 pm

Or as my old atheist mathmatician friend Paul used to say:

You cannot disprove my theory that Erny the Keebler elf is at the center of the universe pulling all the strings!

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 9, 2003, 1:40 pm

Personally I believe that faith does not need proof, I have faith in god not because I have seen "miracles" or events that lead me to believe in god, but because that is what deep down in my being. Whether you want to think of that as my soul or as my brain that is really irrelevant to me. I've always thought that man is such a strange creature, part animal and part divine. We all have some of the most basic vile instincts of any animal yet we also have a part of us that wants to be much better than those instincts. Now while you may point to the development of societies and civilizations for the taming of mans animalistic side and that these developments are just the by product of the human organism development in a response to succeed in it's environment, I tend to think that it is something else within man that strives to make itself better.

All this comes down to our free will really. I mean most other animals are slaves to their instincts, yet man has a choice. Now is it our evolved brains that give us that free will? A lot of people who have functioning brains do not possess the same free will as others, many people are still slaves to their base instincts. Whether this manifest as the killers who kill for the pure animal ferocity or little things like belittling others for the pure reason that we feel like it. Now all this can be explained as part of the chemical make up of our brains, however, I choose to think that there is another part of ourselves that helps shape our free will.

Having said all this I also understand that faith is not something that everyone understands and that they choose to accept other justifications and see the world in a completely different way. I've always believed that faith is personal and not something that others can affect in me or that I can affect in others.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 9, 2003, 1:50 pm

I love how you counter-argue your own argument Crav. Saves me the trouble!

Burke · Post by **Burke** » July 9, 2003, 2:15 pm

Voro, I was talking about Adex's analogies:

Rejecting miracles of God is similar to a caveman rejecting the concept of the number 12, just because he didn't have the fingers to count it.

There were a lot more "miracles of God" thousands of years ago, because man did not understand the world as much has he does today. Just because you don't understand how something happened does not make it a miracle.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 2:46 pm

Well Burke I think God performs miracles through physcial means.

Assume God is really on top of his game and can predict and figure out infinite variables.

I belive he constructed the universe to perform to precise mechanisms like a human would construct a grandfather clock.

He knew you were going to pray over something way in the "beginning" (time linked words don't apply to God) and so he tweaked the universal variables to produce a his desired answer to your prayers years later.
(Again you can't use "later" with God, he's outside time reference.)

Many times a miracle is a result of physical stimulus. What connects it to God is the fact that that physical miracle was "designed" to happen when it did to benefit you.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 9, 2003, 3:31 pm

basically .... the whole miracle thing is what people would use to explain events they didn't understand .... because well they were stupid now we have grown smart enough to know that god isn't throwing lightening down at us .... its positive and negatively charged particles .... but some people still to this day are still stupid enough to call things that we don't understand a miracle of god because there still stuck 2000 years in the past

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 9, 2003, 4:13 pm

2: I like vanilla icecream

1: I don't understand why you like vanilla icecream!

2: Well it reminds me of the stuff my mother made when I was young.

1: I don't understand why you like vanilla icecream!

2: Memories man, it triggers memories.

1: I don't understand why you like vanilla icecream!

2: ......are you hearing me?

1: I don't understand why you like vanilla icecream!

2: forget I mentioned it.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 9, 2003, 5:40 pm

basically .... the whole miracle thing is what people would use to explain events they didn't understand .... because well they were stupid now we have grown smart enough to know that god isn't throwing lightening down at us .... its positive and negatively charged particles .... but some people still to this day are still stupid enough to call things that we don't understand a miracle of god because there still stuck 2000 years in the past

I have my doubts on whether people have grown smarter over the years. Now if you say we have more knowledge I would have to agree, but smarter? I see things on a daily basis that make me question whether humans have grown any smarter.

I love how you counter-argue your own argument Crav. Saves me the trouble!

See the thing was that I never counter-argued my main point. I started by saying that faith was something you didn't need proof for and in the end I stated that it was my belief that faith is a personal thing and that no one could give you or take away your faith except yourself. The rest was just filler dealing with free will and man's animal instincts. By putting in both sides of an argument you stop someone else from pointing out counter arguments since you already mentioned them without weakening your main argument, which was that faith is something that goes beyond what you see. Faith to me is something that is or is not a part of you it should not be influenced by events you see or experience, whether these events can be interpreted as a sign to strengthen or weaken one's beliefs.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 10, 2003, 2:53 am

By putting in both sides of an argument you stop someone else from pointing out counter arguments since you already mentioned them without weakening your main argument,

This is absolutely not true. Acknowledging counters to your own argument makes your point weaker, unless you dismiss these counters with your own. If I argue there is no god, then give samples of where god might exist but do not counter these samples, I am in effect helping my opponent. It is better not to mention flaws in your own argument at all unless you are prepared to defend them.

Oh and btw Masteen, the reason my brain hurts is because I am rarely exposed to so much antilogic as Adex's posts. Even geniuses get head aches!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 10, 2003, 10:32 am

The thing about the big bag theory, which is believeable and maybe true, is that it still doesnt explain a "beginning" maybe to this earth and life on it, but there was still matter, and nothing in science can explain "the beginning" something, did not just appear out of nothing, if there was only logic, the universe would be pure nothingness, being that there is no explenation for the "beginning" is one of the reasons im an agnostic opposed to athiest

I dont care what you call god or what he/she it is or if it even exsist, i only care if there is an afterlife or not, if there never was nothingness, then how can my mind/thoughts etc, fade into nothingness

The one thing about Reincarnation, is that even with an athiest point of view it can still make sence, when we die we rot and become part of the earth again, and life is created by that cycle, and life itself, like the earth, could be reused, hence the theory that we "life" was never created and will never be destroyed and will live on in one form or another without time, and without "memory" of a past life this could never be truly explained.

Not that i "have faith" in this or "believe" this, just an idea.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 10, 2003, 12:31 pm

I always found it comical that some people that mock me for believing in God, believe in a magical Big Bang theory where everything just worked its way out. You people have as much proof about your beliefs as I do, you know what? You have faith, same as me, just in something different. Now, if you believe in neither God or the Big Bang, then that's different and I guess I respect that. To laugh at me, but worship the almighty science's default answer of "Ummm, a Big Bang did it?" is pathetic.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 10, 2003, 1:21 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:I always found it comical that some people that mock me for believing in God, believe in a magical Big Bang theory where everything just worked its way out. You people have as much proof about your beliefs as I do, you know what? You have faith, same as me, just in something different. Now, if you believe in neither God or the Big Bang, then that's different and I guess I respect that. To laugh at me, but worship the almighty science's default answer of "Ummm, a Big Bang did it?" is pathetic.

Caveat: i'm not an astrophysicist, so dont claim to be speaking from expertise

you raise a very valid point. But there are differences between the two, and i will try to make a concise point =). In both cases (Big Bang and Divine Creation) there is this point in common: humans do not know exactly how the Universe originated (if it ever truly "orginated").

So, going from there, the Big Bang is a Theory based on facts. Here are 2 of those important facts. 1. The universe is expanding. 2. The universe is accelerating. Those are measurable facts. The experiments can be duplicated, repeated, flaws can be exposed if they exist, and the facts can be further clarified. From those facts, as well as quite a few thousand others, and quite a bit of calculation based on sets of facts, the Big Bang theory has evolved.

Maybe it isnt really called the Big Bang theory by scientists anymore, but for ease of conversation, let's use the term. Regardless of that it is a theory. And nobody should take it as "the gospel truth". What it is, is a theory that is based on a massive amount of measured data. So you cannot irrefutable say "The Universe began EXACTLY like this". But you can say that "The most reasonable position to take is that the Universe began w/ a Big Bang...etc".

Science is not inflexible. Scientists not only acknowledge that this theory will continue to change, they expect it to. It will continue to evolve until we reach the limits of our will or ability to understand it, as our measuring tools and our minds are finite things.

The (Christian) Divine Creation account is 3500 years old, hasn't changed in 3300 years, and is not subject to indepent review, verification, or test of any kind. It is based on word of mouth stories that were passed around for 500 years, and not even written down until around 850 BC during the limited time when Irsael was a stable independent Kingdom.

Those are two very different things.

So it is one thing to say well in either case you have to have faith. Which is sort of true. However, in one case your faith is in the process that will be continueing to refine and test, and doublecheck the facts to form the most parsimonious conclusion. Whereas in the other case you are required to have faith in the absence of facts, and sometimes faith in opposition of facts (ie thinking the Universe is 5500 years old).

My wording of that statement may seem like an indictment, but i think it is an accurate statement. I am not trying to make a quality judgement, just trying to elucidate a difference. And maybe it has gotten to hair splitting at this point =).

i knew i wouldnt be concise =)

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 10, 2003, 1:25 pm

Haha nice one Krimson I was waiting for someone to trot that out

I agree btw. I find quantum physics to be as big a bunch of hokum as religion: sure all the theories match the observed phenomena. . .but I still think they're wrong

FFS science can't even explain gravity yet and that has a much greater affect on my day to day life than the beginnings of the universe or "god" does

I personally think there are a great many things that lie beyond the potential for human understanding and I'm happy to leave it at that rather than ascribe them to some "god" or spend decades theorising with an incomplete set of equations.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 10, 2003, 1:51 pm

Krimson, in deference to you it is certainly also possible to suggest that God initiated the Big Bang, and constructed the universe as we observe it today rather than as described in Genesis. No way to know that, but there is no way to know the pre-Big Bang state (if our understanding of that is even sort of right).

Tanc, yeah sort of. The difference is that Scientists don't claim to be irrefutably correct, and they are continueing to work every day and night to improve that understanding. And even if a scientist does claim to be irrefutable correct, if he's not you can prove him wrong =).

but yeah some of the conclusinos of quantum physics seem to be pretty ridiculous.

however that is because you cannot truly understand them without doing the math. And i certainly can't "do the math", and even if somebody could do the math and post it here, none of the rest of us would be able to understand it, so it might as well be some dude with tablets coming down from the mountain

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 10, 2003, 1:52 pm

Science is not inflexible. Scientists not only acknowledge that this theory will continue to change, they expect it to. It will continue to evolve until we reach the limits of our will or ability to understand it, as our measuring tools and our minds are finite things.

The core difference between science and religion, well and concisely stated.

Nice one Vor.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 10, 2003, 2:00 pm

This is absolutely not true. Acknowledging counters to your own argument makes your point weaker, unless you dismiss these counters with your own. If I argue there is no god, then give samples of where god might exist but do not counter these samples, I am in effect helping my opponent. It is better not to mention flaws in your own argument at all unless you are prepared to defend them.

Lets see my original argument was that faith should not be based on proof whether is strengthens or weakens your faith. I put how people view events and believe what they will whether it is because they trust in what they can prove or just trust in what they have experienced. In both cases it comes down to what the person "believes" in there being, whether it is the scientist that need proof or the church goer who interprets what they see as a sign from god. In the end really it comes down to the individual's core and not really what they see or can prove. As has been seen here people will look at the same events and read them completely differently. If my examples do not make sense then I apologize.

So it is one thing to say well in either case you have to have faith. Which is sort of true. However, in one case your faith is in the process that will be continueing to refine and test, and doublecheck the facts to form the most parsimonious conclusion. Whereas in the other case you are required to have faith in the absence of facts, and sometimes faith in opposition of facts (ie thinking the Universe is 5500 years old).

I think your confusing faith in god with faith in the words written by man in the name of god.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 10, 2003, 3:26 pm

well we are definitely talking about a lot of semantical issues Crav for sure.

I just was using that example to make a point really. I certainly am not trying to pigeonhole all Christians as fundamentalist-literal-interpretation of the bible types. I drew the extreme example because it was expeditious. =)

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 10, 2003, 4:20 pm

Note my goathearder comment earlier... to me, as I believe God does interact in our existence, he initated the Big Bang. To me, after spending a great deal of time doing empercial research in College I can't fathom how anyone, presented with what I believe to be scientific facts, can interpert the Bible literally. There are just too many translations and probably some omissions and remissions by some of those doing the copying.

However the basic message of saved through grace and faith is there as are Christ's examples of how to live a good life. That to me is all I need. I know some Christians will not agree with my statements but the whole creation "theory" isn't a theory, it's just a crock. First of all these people state to believe in an all powerful being who is outside the boundaries of time then they want to ascribe His work to a Earthly rotation timeframe. You can't do that, pick one or the other and stick with it... sorry didn't mean to get off on a rant.

Crav makes an excellent point. World View, we all interpert things through our own world view. Each of us interperting things through our experiences and genetics. This is one reason it's often difficult to "convert" those with a Judaic background to Christanity. They see the concept of the Trinity as being Polytheistic... but that's another arguement. Anyway, kudos to Crav for bringing that up, excellent point.

Marb

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 10, 2003, 5:33 pm

Lets see my original argument was that faith should not be based on proof whether is strengthens or weakens your faith. I put how people view events and believe what they will whether it is because they trust in what they can prove or just trust in what they have experienced. In both cases it comes down to what the person "believes" in there being, whether it is the scientist that need proof or the church goer who interprets what they see as a sign from god. In the end really it comes down to the individual's core and not really what they see or can prove. As has been seen here people will look at the same events and read them completely differently.

Now we are getting into some metaphysics. You claim that it all comes down to the individual and how he/she relates to this world or universe. The question then becomes is there such a thing as truth independent of human beings? Would numbers exist without humans? Or colors? Or scientific laws?

The argument now becomes does truth exist independently of us or do we create truth? I propose that we discover truths about the world around us that already existed before we discovered them. For example, numbers existed before we learned how to count. The sun never rotated around the earth even though at one time most humans believed it did.

The semantics here are thin. There is a huge difference between believing something and actually knowing something.

A belief may or may not be true, but knowledge is always true. For example:

I believe that the world is flat or I believe that the world is round.
I know that the world is round.

What I'm getting at is that faith rests on belief and not necessarily on knowledge. Science, on the other hand, rests solely on knowledge. Scientists don't believe in gravity, they know of gravity, conversely, preachers don't know of god, they just believe in her.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 10, 2003, 5:54 pm

Science is exact given that the rules of the universe are exact. The best example I can give is a discussion I saw talking about the first few second after the Big Bang. We have been able see physics leading up till the first few second, but within those few seconds we can not say for sure that the rules are the same. So we know that the rules of the universe are not absolute, we see this in other astrologic anomalies as well. So we cannot say with certainty that universal constants are truly constant, given this we know that we will find the answers to our scientific questions because of something innate within us that tells us that there is a truth out there. Now whether you are looking for the truth of the universe or the truth within our own being there is something in us that knows we will find it. Personally I believe this is something that is in our divine nature and not our animal nature, perhaps I am wrong.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 10, 2003, 6:10 pm

we know that we will find the answers to our scientific questions because of something innate within us that tells us that there is a truth out there. Now whether you are looking for the truth of the universe or the truth within our own being there is something in us that knows we will find it. Personally I believe this is something that is in our divine nature and not our animal nature

Again I disagree. The truth is out there whether we know it or not, whether we find it or not. We do not know that we will find it, all we can do is look for it.

I agree that it is our drive as humans to look for it and it is what sets us apart from animals. I never argued against this.

I think you missed the point of my post, which is to say:

FAITH MEANS NOT WANTING TO KNOW --Friedrich Nietzsche

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 10, 2003, 6:20 pm

Oh no I understood the point of your post I just disagreed with you. With all due respect to Nietzsche to me faith means to know.

Again I disagree. The truth is out there whether we know it or not, whether we find it or not. We do not know that we will find it, all we can do is look for it.

Hence what you are saying is that you have faith that the truth is out there whether we know it or not with or without proof?