Thread: Christianity

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Then it ultimately is simply a matter of faith,

I applaud those who find God in their own ways, and are convinced of His authenticity. It's not the belief in God that I'm applauding, though. I'm applauding the conviction drawn upon through intelligent exploration of the natural world and the inner-self. If you come to the conclusion that God exists then hey, it's not my place to tell you otherwise.

However, those who point to scriptures and religious texts, and rhetorical flourishes appear to me as people allowing themselves to be influenced, allowing the doctrines of a possibly fictional religion to dictate the foundations of their personal identities and beliefs.

And that, to me at least, is like seeing humanity take one step backwards.

To me, the failure of science to acknowledge the possibility of a world invisible to the naked eye and to ignore such a possibility that one (or more) exists is a giant step backwards. While believers are aware of a natural world and an inner self, they are aware of much more too—the place referred to as “paradise” in Scripture. And, honestly, if God exists (and I do believe in a Supreme Being), do you really think God needs applauding? God isn’t a stand-up comedian needing a launch into fortune and fame.

Isn’t it quite possible that the beliefs of an atheist might be “possibly fictional” (or is the word “false”?). Your placement of the phrase “possibly fictional” before the word “religion” is clever strategy; however, the phrase could just as easily be attached to almost anything man has yet to discover. There is also the possibility prophets of Biblical times weren't gathering stories from their imaginations. One could argue the "Spiritual Writings" came directly from God.

You mention “faith” in your reply, and while it is true the overwhelming majority of believers from various religions and from various cultures, do have their beliefs rooted in faith, there are many believers whose faith stems from their contact with the invisible world. There are numerous believers all around the globe whose psychic abilities have lifted the veil separating the seen and the unseen. These people no longer rely upon "faith" because they "know."

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

I applaud those who find God in their own ways, and are convinced of His authenticity. .

Your intentions are good with your statement above, but I doubt Christians or persons of other faiths are seeking to be applauded for their belief in God. The religious do what comes natural to them--they turn to God in prayer and in conversation at certain hours each day. You don't want to be applauded for being an atheist, do you?

I applaud you for an absolutely fantastic post. Good writing.

I hold open the possibility that a God exists. But I look suspiciously upon anyone who believes they can speak for God, understand God, or know God's intentions. That includes both atheists, and believers.

Now that I know your exact angle, I think that I can answer perfectly. I don't try to define God myself - I use someone else's words. The Bible is my source for knowledge of God; it is the Word of God. It defines God's characteristics completely, so I can know what he is like. I dont really like all the people who go about trying to 'study God' with interesting texts and theories without actually seeing what God has to say about himself.

Sorry if I was a bit off earlier.

But I don't consider a God to be a conclusion derived from logic.

Bang on. The conclusion is by faith, and after that you can see the logic. God has to show you his logic, which is what makes your faith definite.

However, those who point to scriptures and religious texts, and rhetorical flourishes appear to me as people allowing themselves to be influenced, allowing the doctrines of a possibly fictional religion to dictate the foundations of their personal identities and beliefs.

I was 'influenced' into Christianity. By God. No preacher or priest was the catalyst for my faith. Faith is a gift from God, which showed me his existence, my sin, Christ's sacrifice, and the factual nature of the Bible, the Word of God. Religious texts are objects held in place by faith, which as you said, isn't by logic. The Bible is not my influence - God is. He wanted me to be a Christian, and there was no stopping him.

I would call belief in God merely through the bible blind - just because it says so doesn't make it true, ass many have said on this debate. You need God to open you eyes. Otherwise, you're just one of the crowd. So I guess that I agree with you. Many of these texts may be fictional, and mankind might throw the bible onto that pile. But I won't listen, because my faith is rooted in God, as it is from God.

A good example is a parable Jesus told, heard many times, that can be applied to many situations (including building maintenance). The wise builder built his house on rock, while the foolish builder built his house on sand. When the storm came, only the wise builder's house was standing. The wise builder had faith from God, in him and Jesus Christ, while the foolish had 'faith' that was built on pressure to belong, manipulation and/or delusion. When there was any trouble, the house on the sand crumbled, as does faith that is not from God.

It also reminds me of an episode of Family Guy, where Meg joins Christianity and 'finds' her salvation and happiness in God, through a programme on the religious channel with a nice talking guy on it. She joins the whole bandwagon,and seems competely tied to her 'faith', until Brian (an athiest) asks her some pressing questions which she can't answer, and therefore loses her faith in God.

Meg never had true faith - she had built her house on sand, and while it looked the same as everyone else's houses, it crumbled when the storm came. Unless your faith is from God, you have your house on sand.

Great post, KyleColorado. Lots of meaning on a difficult subject with none of the spite I keep finding nowadays.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

To me, the failure of science to acknowledge the possibility of a world invisible to the naked eye and to ignore such a possibility that one (or more) exists is a giant step backwards.

Most scientific work is conducted in realms "invisible to the naked eye". Everything from particle physics at the sub-subatomic level, to molecular biology, to nano-technology, and most forms of astronomy which deal with light in wavelengths far above and below that which we can see. So, science in no way ignores the possibility of worlds beyond our ability to see, or even to understand as evidenced by research into what is currently known as 'dark' matter and 'dark' energy -- phenomena we can not currently detect directly, but which we know exists because of their effects on the visible universe. Science isn't taking any steps backward.

Originally Posted by Terry D

Science isn't taking any steps backward.

“In any event, it is wiser not to ask science at all; its duty is to destroy illusions, not to support them. Herein lies its power. Also its weakness.”




“Since we have no positive, secure data on the possibility of existence after death, and since we do not know whether the spirit—which seems to be so closely bound up with our material organization and which organization is partially conditioned by it, so that no one can deny its influence—is destroyed along with the body, then everyone is free to embrace the belief that pleases him and on which he can make up his mind.

“He is even permitted to believe that the spirit—which developed with the body, with it became stronger and weaker, and for which we have no evidence of previous existence—can survive the body and lead an independent, eternal existence.

“But all this will always be only a belief, a hope, which cannot hold its own against logic and reasoning.

“Here science recognizes its inadequacy and cloaks itself in a discreet silence; for if it were to speak, it would be stepping out of its role. However, if assailed with questions which move science notwithstanding to give answers, questions eliciting the scientific attitude toward the plausibility of opinions based on belief, what the scientist would say then would be anything but encouraging.

“In any event, it is wiser not to ask science at all; its duty is to destroy illusions, not to support them. Herein lies its power. Also its weakness.”

But we shall close with a word from Arthur Koestler:

“That there is only matter and no spirit is a highly illogical proposition, far from the findings of modern physics, which show that there is no matter in the traditional sense of the concept.” This is yet another aspect of the problem to which we can point, an aspect indicating how mobile, how uncertain, is the borderline between being and not-being.

Source: Glimpses of the Beyond (Jean-Baptiste Delacour)



This seems like an appropriate way to end this post. I've included an Arthur Koestler quote followed by one of my own inspired by his:

True creativity often starts where language ends.
Arthur Koestler

True life may start where worldly life ends.
Me

Originally Posted by Cadence

The conclusion is by faith, and after that you can see the logic. God has to show you his logic, which is what makes your faith definite.

That's a great method for believing whatever one wants to believe. Start with the conclusion, let the "logic" come to you. With hope for eternal life, the promise of a social network of fellow believers, well thought-out answers to FAQs, rituals which give a sense of higher purpose, peace, goodness, making sense of the world through the lense of the belief system, rising above the mundane, and the habit of praying to, speaking, reading, thinking, writing, listening to sermons about God as if real... Of course this results in belief.

It may be very strong, compelling belief, which a person may even be willing to give one's life for. Strong belief, even by large numbers of otherwise intelligent people, doesn't make it true.

Strong belief, even by large numbers of otherwise intelligent people, doesn't make it true.

Indeed. It is only true to those who believe it. Hence, we cannot turn anyone to Christianity without God's intervention.

That's a great method for believing whatever one wants to believe.

I can understand why people bunch Christianity with every other religion - on the outside, we just look like everyone else. We're stuck to our beliefs like they're superglued to our minds, and we seem to get offended whenever anyone else sees differently.

The difference between Christianity and other religions is invisible - it is a matter of God. Since those who do not know him cannot see him, how can anyone argue validity? People can believe what they want to believe - God will show the truth to those he has chosen. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

I can't argue Christianity as the one true faith. But anyone who has Christ knows that he is the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to he father except through him.

Wow. When you get down to it, there's very little that you can meaningfully debate about the validity of the Christian faith. It makes sense, I guess. someting that does not come from man cannot be hindered by man, nor can it be applied by man to others.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

If you want to talk principles and logic, let's consider Occam's Razor, in which, between two contrasting theories, the one which makes the least assumptions is the most plausible, until evidence can prove otherwise.

William of Ockham believed in God, and used his logic to actively scrutinise the concept of God so that his own belief could be made stronger. Occam's Razor, as faulty as it is (so not the best weapon of logic), does not oppose theism, but it doesn't entirely support it either.

Kyle, can I ask what you believe occurred before the Big Bang? Surely you can't think 'nothing' comfortably, can you? That would assume that from the nothing, something suddenly, at a specific point, and perfectly came into explosive being. You claim that believing in God, a wholly necessary being, being the cause of the Big Bang so we don't have this large logical impossibility of something-coming-from-nothing, is illogical.

Originally Posted by Nick

Kyle, can I ask what you believe occurred before the Big Bang? Surely you can't think 'nothing' comfortably, can you? That would assume that from the nothing, something suddenly, at a specific point, and perfectly came into explosive being.

And what do you believe came before your god? Same problem, only that something omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscience coming from nothing breaks far more rules than the big bang theory. But of course, Christians claim that rules of reality don't apply to them.

Originally Posted by Nick

Kyle, can I ask what you believe occurred before the Big Bang? Surely you can't think 'nothing' comfortably, can you? That would assume that from the nothing, something suddenly, at a specific point, and perfectly came into explosive being. You claim that believing in God, a wholly necessary being, being the cause of the Big Bang so we don't have this large logical impossibility of something-coming-from-nothing, is illogical.

Hey Nick, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against you. I like this discussion actually, I think it's fun.

But, I don't think the Big Bang is complete. I think it's only a partial model. It shows what happened up until the singularity point, but not what happened before it. That doesn't mean there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. It just means the calculations don't extend past that point.

Just as the horizon was believed to be the end of the world because that was as far as humans could see, but now we know the belief was simply a misconception.

Just as Newton's perception of Absolute Space was perceived to be complete, until it was improved upon by Einstein's Relativity,
just as Einstein's perception of Relative Space was perceived to be complete, until it was improved upon by Quantum Physics.

The Big Bang Theory goes all the way back to Einstein when he was working with equations that didn't involve Quantum calculations. Now that those have been applied, cyclical models of the universe have come up time and again. There was even a mathematical model that demonstrated the universe as a recurring event, what we consider "The Big Bang" was, in this model, just an expansion from a previous universe. (See The Big Bounce)

There's also the various Multiverse perceptions and what not.

Of course, that doesn't mean all those theories are true, but if you want to know my belief: it's that those theories hold more logical weight than the argument that a "being" created everything.

There are many illogicalities with your notion that a "being" was an external, necessary component. One of which is what constitutes a "being", and the requirements such a being would require to maintain life. (sustenance, reproduction, etc..) Now if you want to argue that the being is beyond all these things, what you're doing is adjusting the definition of a being to fit your hypothesis. Or, more so, you're creating an entirely new, unfounded lifeform, without any evidence that supports it's existence, in order to satisfy your hypothesis.

That's why I believe that specific thought process of yours is illogical.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Of course, that doesn't mean all those theories are true, but if you want to know my belief: it's that those theories hold more logical weight than the argument that a "being" created everything.

Good answer, Kyle. I've been playing the devil's advocate here, because it's easy to find atheists that don't really understand why they don't believe in God, and just find it a new fad under Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. I'm open to a possibility of a 'Prime Mover', but I do believe that science holds the explanation of origin (or lack of), even if it isn't quite there yet. I find these discussions fun, too.

And what do you believe came before your god? Same problem, only that something omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscience coming from nothing breaks far more rules than the big bang theory. But of course, Christians claim that rules of reality don't apply to them.

I've explained either in this thread or the 'Atheism' thread that the model of contingency and necessity applied to God wouldn't require an origin for him, nor a creator.

And what do you believe came before your god?

God has always existed - there was nothing before him. if you can't get that round your head, congratulations! You've just proved the divine and higher nature of God.

But of course, Christians claim that rules of reality don't apply to them.

Christians acknowledge that their concept of reality isn't perfect, and therefore seek the truth rather than believing that they know all there is to know.

Originally Posted by Nick

I've explained either in this thread or the 'Atheism' thread that the model of contingency and necessity applied to God wouldn't require an origin for him, nor a creator. [/COLOR]

I've explained that it does.

Originally Posted by Blood

I've explained that it does.

I'm not sure if you understand, then, because if God fits under that model as a necessary being, then it doesn't. There's no wiggle room there except by opposing the idea of contingency and necessity.

A lot of people ask who created God, doubting that he can just 'exist'. In my opinion, it's the nature of God to be out of our reach. Giving him a creator would make him a bit weaker, no? Anything that made God would have to be greater than God - so the only way for God to be the greatest being is if he always existed. Infinity might be a simple answer, but it's the only one that really makes sense.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

To me, the failure of science to acknowledge the possibility of a world invisible to the naked eye and to ignore such a possibility that one (or more) exists is a giant step backwards. While believers are aware of a natural world and an inner self, they are aware of much more too—the place referred to as “paradise” in Scripture.

Science doesn't rule out such possibilities, but it doesn't acknowledge that there's sufficient reason to believe anything for which there's a lack of substantial support. The inner self has been acknowledged in psychological science since the cognitive approach, beginning in 1956, replaced behavourism.