Christianity - The only religion that makes sense of the world?

[abelisle]

Sad to say but anyone or any system of belief or unbelief can create explanations. None can be proven. Further arguments are and will be moot.

Alex

[Twilight]

Quote:

None can be proven.

Do you mind if I point out here, that you have used an absolute statement to try to prove that nothing is absolute?

Mark :-)

[oldsailor29]

nothing to argue about. Christianity is the only religion which has the creator of all things who dies so his creation can live. This fact puts Christianity beyond all the other religions.

[abelisle]

Yes, I'm quite aware, thank you.

When are we going to realize that we can argue ad infinitum but it all comes down to personal choice - the desire to have faith in something that can't be proven.

Alex

[cardw]

Quote:

I was speaking to the title of the thread. You cannot make sense without consciousness and you can't get to consciousness without Intelligent Design. If you choose to call your Designer something other than God, so be it.

This just another form of complexity to god argument. First we don't know exactly what consciousness is. There are a number of ways to account for consciousness other than a creator god. Ultimately we don't know. That is the most honest response that I can come up with.

I try not to claim things that I can't possibly know. And to me, what that leaves us with is our reason guided by empathy. From my observation of life that seems to be the best we have.

[cardw]

Quote:

The basis for my ethics is to reduce suffering because I don't like to suffer and I don't like to see other people suffer. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant to me.

To have a "basis for ethics" means to have a set of "laws".

So you do believe in "moral laws" after all Cardw...

You do subscribe to an "absolute morality", you have just expressed it here.

You are stating that suffering is "wrong", this is an "absolute moral" position.

Why is it wrong?

It is wrong because you believe it to be an "absolute moral" position.

The aversion to suffering is built into most people. It's as simple as "I don't like to suffer." That's not a moral position, but a preference and possibly an instinct. The aversion to suffering may be an advantage because it motivates us to develop community and co-operative survival. I can see many advantages to developing ethics.

You may postulate some "absolute" but ultimately it's because you are more comfortable with that or you can't conceive of any world without that.

What you are doing is playing a game of semantics. The idea of law is man made. It's a man made language and it's a man made system of logic. Unless you have figured out how to dialog without the use of your brain, your ideas are human ideas, just as mine are.

[Twilight]

Quote:

When are we going to realize that we can argue ad infinitum but it all comes down to personal choice - the desire to have faith in something that can't be proven.

I personally believe that Gods existance can be proven.

It is proven by the very fact that "law" even exists.

Without God, there would be no "law".

There is "law", therefore the "hypothesis" of God can be proven.

The resurrection of Christ was also a physically historical event, as was the rasing of Lazarus.

There is lots of logical proof.

It is not about proof, it is often about this:

Quote:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

It is willful ignorance, not proof that is the issue...

The idea that "faith" is believing something that cannot be proven, is an idea that atheists and some agnostics would like us to accept.

But that is not "faith".

Faith is trusting what God will do in the present and future because of His historical activity and presence in the world in the past.

Faith is no different to performing a scientific experiment, where you know that heating the water to a certain temperature will produce steam.

How do you know that?

Because those "laws", those "rules" of physics have always been constant.

So using those "laws", those "rules" you can measure what the future will bring.

Our whole existance is based on this principle.

---------------

Faith is using that principle, with God.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

There are a number of ways to account for consciousness other than a creator god.

So how do you account for consciousness without God Cardw?

You have said here that you can, so please display this.

[cardw]

Quote:

No Cardw, I am asking you to provide the "source" for the "laws of reason".

Are you saying these men "invented" reason and the "laws of reason"?

Yes

Quote:

So you are saying reason has no basis in any "authority".

If it has no "basis", then it has nothing with which to base itself on.

Therefore, by your reasoning, "reason" having no base of authority, does not "exist"?

I already answered this. I said it is based on observation and experimentation. Our systems of reason don't address everything, so they are incomplete and aren't universally applicable. So they are not authoritative or comprehensive. They are very human systems.

Quote:

No, I am saying I have a basis for "reason" "logic" and "morality", which you do not.

You claim that your basis is god. That's simply a claim which you have failed to produce one bit of evidence for. And I think you are claiming that it's the god of the Bible, which is even farther from being likely.

Quote:

To have "logic", you have to have "absolute laws" of logic...

Why, because you say so? I think we are simply agreeing to dialog based on the terms of logic that we have made up to make sense of the world. In reality they have no meaning other than what we assign them based on our subjective assessment of the world around us.

[Twilight]

The aversion to suffering is built into most people.

Again you are appealing to "law".

You are saying there is a "law" within people that means that person does not like suffering.

At what point was that "law" not there Cardw?

And please, where do you think "laws of logic" come from?

You have not answered that question, although it has been asked many times.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

No Cardw, I am asking you to provide the "source" for the "laws of reason".

Are you saying these men "invented" reason and the "laws of reason"?

Yes

So you are saying that "reason" did not exist before mankind?

Reason is a relatively new set of laws that man invented?

As reason is built on the "laws of logic", then are you saying that "logic" is man made?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Reason is a relatively new set of laws that man invented?

There is a further problem with this point you have presented Cardw.

You state that "reason" is the basis of your worldview.

But you are also now stating that "reason" is man made.

Now, if it is "man made", then it is arbitrary.

It is something that one "man" can define for everyone else.

Therefore it is not absolute, as my "reason" can be different to your "reason".

So according to your assumption that reason is man made, you have just denied reason even exists in any absolute sense.

-------------

Why?

Because if I "reason" that God exists and you "reason" that He does not, and each of us "defines reason", then we are "both right".

If your truth is relative and my truth is relative, then we are both right.

But that is illogical.

Logic demands that two opposing positions be either:

A. Wrong completely.

B. Wrong on one side only.

Your argument allows:

C. Right on both sides.

Which is a logical absurdity.

------------

So to accept your "theory of reason", I have to abandon logic.

Once again, your worldview can be shown to be of very little practical value in real world application, and it also shows that it cannot be trusted when it is stating that God does not exist.

Why?

Because we have to abandon "logic" to accept it.

Mark :-)

[karl]

Quote:

I was speaking to the title of the thread. You cannot make sense without consciousness and you can't get to consciousness without Intelligent Design. If you choose to call your Designer something other than God, so be it.

This just another form of complexity to god argument. First we don't know exactly what consciousness is. There are a number of ways to account for consciousness other than a creator god. Ultimately we don't know. That is the most honest response that I can come up with.

I try not to claim things that I can't possibly know. And to me, what that leaves us with is our reason guided by empathy. From my observation of life that seems to be the best we have.

How can you know anything, Rich, if you don't allow deductive reasoning? And if you do, how can you get any reasoning without intelligence? Intelligence doesn't just happen spontaneously. It must come from intelligence.

Whatever intelligence your reasoning/understanding comes from is your God.

[Twilight]

Quote:

To have "logic", you have to have "absolute laws" of logic...

the terms of logic that we have made up

So now you are saying that "logic" is "relative"?

You see, you have no other choice but to do this.

Because to admit to "laws of logic", means accepting The Lawgiver.

-------------

You say that "logic" is just "made up" and is decided by each individual.

So if I say 2+2 = 4

And you say 2+2 = 3.5

We are both right?

This is what you are offering as "enlightenment"?

--------------

So to accept your "worldview", I have to throw out logic.

I also have to throw out "science".

I have to throw out "maths" which is founded on logic.

And you want to present this worldview as a viable option to Christianity?

---------------

The real point here, is that you do not really believe this.

You may say it, but you actually live according to laws of logic.

When you drive your car along the road, the speedometer says 55mph, are you travelling at that speed?

How can you tell?

Because using "laws of logic", man has built and designed cars that can gauge the speed they are travelling at.

Now if your argument is correct, I can drive a car at 90mph.

A policeman can pull me over and explain that I was driving above 55mph.

I can then argue that because we both define "logic" differently, I have decided that "his 90mph" is actually only "55mph".

And I would be right, because I can argue any "logic" if I decide what "logic" is.

So you "say" that logic is "relative", but you live a life that expresses "trust" in "absolute laws of logic".

--------------

Remind me, what is so attractive about your worldview again my friend?

And why you "express" that one worldview is wrong, when you live by that worldview and not your own?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: cardw

This just another form of complexity to god argument. First we don't know exactly what consciousness is. There are a number of ways to account for consciousness other than a creator god. Ultimately we don't know. That is the most honest response that I can come up with.

I try not to claim things that I can't possibly know. And to me, what that leaves us with is our reason guided by empathy. From my observation of life that seems to be the best we have.

How can you know anything, Rich, if you don't allow deductive reasoning? And if you do, how can you get any reasoning without intelligence? Intelligence doesn't just happen spontaneously. It must come from intelligence.

Whatever intelligence your reasoning/understanding comes from is your God.

If you watch carefully, the atheist/agnostic at this point is now going to have to deny "laws of logic".

Any "laws of logic" that transcend the individual, have no basis for existance in the atheistic/agnostic worldview.

They can only be accounted for by a "Lawgiver".

But rather than accept that, many atheists and agnostics will deny the very "laws of logic" they live by every day, than admit that the "Lawgiver" exists...

They have two choices.

1. Accept God.

2. Deny "absolute law" of any kind.

But then they have a dilemna.

Why?

Because they have just denied the very foundation of "science, mathematics, logic and morality".

So now they cannot even argue that "science" is on their side, as they have just thrown it out, when they threw absolute laws of logic out...

How can any experiment be performed if logic has no absolutes?

Bye bye science...

---------------

So in reality, they live by borrowing from a Christian worldview, but they deny that reality with absurd arguments.

Mark

[Guest]

Quote:

God did not drown the antediluvians. The flood did not come directly out from God upon them. They placed themselves beyond His protection.

And how could you possibly know this? It's not in the Bible.

Quote:

I realize that the language in the Bible gives the impression that God caused the flood to destroy them all but it is a language that one needs to understand. For example God says that He slew Saul, the first king of Israel. But God did not touch Saul not even with His little finger. Saul killed himself. And yet the language of the Bible is, "God slew Saul." 1 Chronicles 10:14.

You know it would seem like god would have made the text a lot more clear since he knows the future.

We know that the Jews didn't have a concept of a devil in the way that Christianity looks at it today. The bible clearly states that they believed that god brought both good and evil. So within the context of their beliefs at the time, God did bring the flood.

And this whole idea that god is somehow not accountable because he stands by and lets things happen is being hypocritical as well.

God is all powerful in your world view. If anything happens, your god is responsible either by commission or omission.

I have to say amen to that cardw. That sure isn't what the Bible says. One would have to turn scripture completely upside down to come to that belief. Even though you didn't use a name, it looks like you have quoted sky. He actually believes that nonsense. What they do, (the ones who believe this) is take one or two Ellen White quotes out of context, and proclaim that they have found a "universal principle".

Then they use that to change the meaning of all of the scripture that deals with this topic. But they don't stop there. They also say that it changes, or nullifies all the other EGW quotes pertaining to this matter. They believe that by doing this, that they relieve God of any and all responsibility in the destruction of the wicked. But as you have correctly pointed out, it does not accomplish this, because standing by and allowing it, when He could have stopped it, is the same as doing it Himself.

[cardw]

How can you know anything, Rich, if you don't allow deductive reasoning? And if you do, how can you get any reasoning without intelligence? Intelligence doesn't just happen spontaneously. It must come from intelligence.

Whatever intelligence your reasoning/understanding comes from is your God.

That's the whole point of agnosticism is that we don't know. That is the default. It appears that we stumble through life trying different things to see if they bring about a pleasing result. It appears that something more complex than we can understand is happening. And I simply honestly admit that I don't know.

Now you may promoting some form of Deism, but that is still a conjecture. I'm not refuting it, but it is a belief on your part. It doesn't even rise to the level of theory because we have no way of testing it.

Now if you want to believe in a god, I have nothing to say about that. But if you claim that your god is universal, the best god out there, and my god, then you have no proof of that in any rational sense because you can't produce any evidence for that what-so-ever.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

How can you know anything, Rich, if you don't allow deductive reasoning? And if you do, how can you get any reasoning without intelligence? Intelligence doesn't just happen spontaneously. It must come from intelligence.

Whatever intelligence your reasoning/understanding comes from is your God.

That's the whole point of agnosticism is that we don't know. That is the default. It appears that we stumble through life trying different things to see if they bring about a pleasing result. It appears that something more complex than we can understand is happening. And I simply honestly admit that I don't know.

Now you may promoting some form of Deism, but that is still a conjecture. I'm not refuting it, but it is a belief on your part. It doesn't even rise to the level of theory because we have no way of testing it.

Now if you want to believe in a god, I have nothing to say about that. But if you claim that your god is universal, the best god out there, and my god, then you have no proof of that in any rational sense because you can't produce any evidence for that what-so-ever.

You're supposed to find your own evidence, Rich. God didn't say I could seek Him and find Him for you. He said I could seek Him and find Him for me. I kinda like that. It is really personal and not something I can bash anybody else over the head with. But God is very real to me on a personal basis.

To, some, that makes me certifiable. But to those who find me rational, it is a proof of sorts that I can testify to my experiences with God. Unless I am psychotic and simply imagining this interaction, God must exist.

[cardw]

Mark, before I respond I would appreciate it if you would answer things I actually said in the context I said them. You keep saying that I am saying things that I'm not and then refuting them. That's called a straw man argument.

And I have yet to see your proofs for god outlined other than the claim that if there are laws of reason then there must be the god of the Bible.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that Christianity is the only religion to make sense of the world since you don't even understand the other approaches to meaning.

All I have read so far is a series of claims. And I think that is all we are going to see.

Quote:

You state that "reason" is the basis of your worldview.

I didn't say this. I said reason influenced by empathy. That is quite different. These may seem to be small points to you, but I have thought these out carefully and these distinctions take us down quite a different path.

And it is becoming obvious that you don't understand these distinctions.

Quote:

But you are also now stating that "reason" is man made.

Now, if it is "man made", then it is arbitrary.

It seems obvious to me if it is a man's brain doing the reasoning then it's man made. I don't know how much more obvious it could be. If you can't understand that, then we are using different rules of reasoning and we are apparently demonstrating that it is arbitrary within this conversation at least.

Plus, just because something is man made doesn't make it arbitrary. I don't think that is an automatic causal relationship. You are setting these relationships up rather arbitrarily.

Our methods of reasoning are based on feedback from the success we have applying those methods. There is no set of universal principles that solve every problem. We have many different modes of thought. Reason is simply one of them.

For example I have seen you use math as some sort of example of absolutism.

In one mode of thinking 2 does equal 2. In other modes of thinking numbers aren't the only thing we give value. Are 2 children equal to 1000 rabbits? Or how many rabbits do we need to be equal to 2 children? A million, a trillion, etc. Where is there a "law" to help us draw the line? Are two misbehaving children worth less than two well behaved ones? Are 2 retarded children worth 2 really smart children?

You are using very simplified arguments to "prove" a very huge idea. The idea that god exists and he blesses Christianity has being the most informed belief system on the planet. And he does this in such a way that there rational proofs for these concepts.

Quote:

So according to your assumption that reason is man made, you have just denied reason even exists in any absolute sense.

No, reason only exists within a very small set of circumstances that require a set of assumptions. Reason is not powerful enough to answer every question, because reason is subject to where we place value on a subjective plane as well as numbers.

Quote:

Because if I "reason" that God exists and you "reason" that He does not, and each of us "defines reason", then we are "both right".

I hate to keep correcting you on this, but you seem to keep failing to understand that I don't reason that god in general doesn't exist. I have no way of testing that, but I can see that the god of the bible is the product of iron age reasoning and promotes a very primitive eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth type ethical system.

Well we may both be right within our own minds, but each of our ideas are subject to outcomes, but since we have no way of testing outcomes in terms of god, there is no rational proof for god. Thus the concept of "not knowing" or agnostic.

Quote:

If your truth is relative and my truth is relative, then we are both right.

I think it is more likely that we are both wrong. In that case reason is not negated. I know that my idea of what is true is definitely not a universal truth, but it's the best I have so far.

Now you are claiming to have an absolute truth that makes the most sense, but I have yet to see you demonstrate what sense it makes. Because when I demonstrate what a hypocrite your god is, you can't demonstrate that he is not. You can't demonstrate the superiority of your belief other than simple claims.

Instead you keep repeating things that I am not saying and refuting them.

So I have to conclude that either you aren't comprehending my position, which I think is the most likely, or you are willfully ignoring statements you can't answer.

[cardw]

Quote:

You're supposed to find your own evidence, Rich. God didn't say I could seek Him and find Him for you. He said I could seek Him and find Him for me.

I recognize on a subjective level that there are greater things than me, but I am reasonably sure that these higher powers are not the god of the bible.

I am open to evidence for god and believe me I have searched.

I do what works. And I have found a lot of things that work really well. And many of them share common values with Christians, but I don't think that Christianity explains them the best. I find Christian explanations to be largely based in fear and rely on the devaluation of humans.

Quote:

It is really personal and not something I can bash anybody else over the head with. But God is very real to me on a personal basis.

That's find with me. I have nothing to say about what you experience inside your own mind. In fact if this experience was creating meaning and helping you to find happiness I would support it as long as it didn't appear to cause harm. Because I believe we all have the freedom to make our way through this life any way we choose.

Quote:

To, some, that makes me certifiable. But to those who find me rational, it is a proof of sorts that I can testify to my experiences with God. Unless I am psychotic and simply imagining this interaction, God must exist.

Well, being mistaken doesn't generally mean one is psychotic. I have been mistaken about a number of things and I don't generally find that it makes me crazy. I don't find your belief in god and your ability to reason to be a proof of anything other than you believe in god and reason from that point of reference.

I have a rich inner life, but I don't say it comes from the god of the Bible. I simply have to admit that I don't know.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

And this whole idea that god is somehow not accountable because he stands by and lets things happen is being hypocritical as well.

God is all powerful in your world view. If anything happens, your god is responsible either by commission or omission.

I have to say amen to that cardw. That sure isn't what the Bible says. One would have to turn scripture completely upside down to come to that belief...

Then they use that to change the meaning of all of the scripture that deals with this topic. But they don't stop there. They also say that it changes, or nullifies all the other EGW quotes pertaining to this matter. They believe that by doing this, that they relieve God of any and all responsibility in the destruction of the wicked. But as you have correctly pointed out, it does not accomplish this, because standing by and allowing it, when He could have stopped it, is the same as doing it Himself.

While I agree with you that the bible does say that god is responsible for killing every man, woman, child, and animal in the flood, what is scary is that you believe that this god is good.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

They believe that by doing this, that they relieve God of any and all responsibility in the destruction of the wicked. But as you have correctly pointed out, it does not accomplish this, because standing by and allowing it, when He could have stopped it, is the same as doing it Himself.

While I agree with you that the bible does say that god is responsible for killing every man, woman, child, and animal in the flood, what is scary is that you believe that this god is good.

I think you might be misrepresenting the position of the "God does not kill" crowd.

And I don't think it is true to say that standing by and watching something happen, when you could prevent it, is the same as doing it.

If I stand and watch my daughter take some juice out of the fridge, pour herself a drink, and drink it, that is not the same as me doing the pouring and drinking myself, even though I could have prevented her from getting the drink. This fact of prevention/causation does not change even if it is my daughter killing a friend with a steak knife. It would be deplorable of me not to prevent it, but my not preventing it is not the same as my doing it or causing it to happen.

The only way we can understand God allowing evil to happen is in the context of the greater good. On a personal level, it makes sense only in the way it can cause us to mature as Christians. On a societal level or a universal level, it makes sense only in the way it can make society or the universe ultimately and eternally safe from evil.

[cardw]

And I don't think it is true to say that standing by and watching something happen, when you could prevent it, is the same as doing it.

If I stand and watch my daughter take some juice out of the fridge, pour herself a drink, and drink it, that is not the same as me doing the pouring and drinking myself, even though I could have prevented her from getting the drink. This fact of prevention/causation does not change even if it is my daughter killing a friend with a steak knife. It would be deplorable of me not to prevent it, but my not preventing it is not the same as my doing it or causing it to happen.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

The only way we can understand God allowing evil to happen is in the context of the greater good. On a personal level, it makes sense only in the way it can cause us to mature as Christians. On a societal level or a universal level, it makes sense only in the way it can make society or the universe ultimately and eternally safe from evil.

And yet in your world view of an all powerful god, god has to supply the life energy for evil to carry out it's ends. And since we don't comprehend how evil gets here or the nature of evil and apparently the solution isn't all that clear, it makes no sense to call Christianity the only "solution" that makes sense. There is very little that makes sense to me.

On one level, there is a point at which you have to ask yourself, "Where else is there to go?"

God doesn't sugarcoat things in His Word and we are sometimes left asking, "How could God do that?"

My personal choices are: 1) Trust God or 2) Despair.

I guess that makes me a weak person, but if God is not working everything out, it is all kind of pointless, to me.

[doug yowell]

One of the most obvious solutions for ridding the world of evil would be to rid the world of the main cause of evil. That would mean that cardw would be first on the list to get the ax, followed by Karl, and so on (I think I'd be around #246,but still well behind Richard,Woody, and Joe Stalin). I'll go with Karl's option. Pretty hard to beat a deal like that.