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

[Guest]

Hey! You really think I would be ahead of Woody and Joe Stalin? I think it would be Woody, Joe Stalin, and then me.

[doug yowell]

Hey! You really think I would be ahead of Woody and Joe Stalin? I think it would be Woody, Joe Stalin, and then me.

You might be right, Richard. You have been a lot nicer lately.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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?"

[Twilight]

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, we could run around the bushes all day.

But let us keep it to one simple point.

You cannot explain the existance of "laws of logic" with your worldview.

Please explain where you think "laws of logic" came from.

I sense some possible "avoidance" going on, if a worldview cannot offer an explanation for this, then that worldview is inherently disfunctional.

Mark :-)

[doug yowell]

[

And it's not pointless to create beauty and joy whether or not we have an eternity to experience. It makes all the difference in the moment. I think we live far too much in an imaginary future and miss out on the present. Even Jesus stated a number times that the kingdom of heaven was here NOW.

If you live in the future I can understand why you might despair because no one that I know of can predict the future with any certainty. And I think the sooner we learn how to accept that, the richer our present can become.

You know of NO ONE who can predict the future with any certainty? How bout that Jesus who stated a few times that the kingdom of heaven was here,now?He also stated a few times that He was coming back, and a bunch of other things that have already come to pass? You like His take on the now but not the future???? If He was wrong on the future why would He get the present right?

[cardw]

Cardw, we could run around the bushes all day.

[Twilight]

Quote:

I don't believe there are universal laws of logic.

So then how can you "reason"?

If there are no universal "laws of logic", you cannot "reason".

How can you perform a scientific experiment without "laws of logic"?

How can you do "maths", without "laws of logic"?

How can you share ideas without "laws of logic"?

You cannot.

Do you not see that this worldview you have denies the validity of science, maths, communicaion and many other things that rely on logical thought, which relies on logical laws?

My friend, if your worldview demands that you deny universal laws of logic, upon which every piece of scientific knoweledge mankind has gathered rests, you might want to consider casting out such a worldview...

And you think Christianity has issues?

:-)

Mark

[Twilight]

Quote:

Well, maybe you can tell me exactly what these laws of logic are and then I'll tell you if I can explain their existence.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_fundamental_laws_of_logic

[cardw]

Quote:

Well, maybe you can tell me exactly what these laws of logic are and then I'll tell you if I can explain their existence.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_fundamental_laws_of_logic

Well we have another set of names here, but can you explain what they are, who discovered them, and what makes them universal?

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't believe there are universal laws of logic.

So then how can you "reason"?

If there are no universal "laws of logic", you cannot "reason".

[Twilight]

Well we have another set of names here, but can you explain what they are, who discovered them, and what makes them universal?

No Cardw, you have to answer this, you are stating there are "no universal laws of logic".

I have pointed them out to you.

You are the one who should be answering those questions...

It is now for you to try and recover some "credence" for your worldview.

Without "universal laws of logic", your worldview has no basis in reality.

So again, you imply Christianity is illogical, but how, how is it illogical, when you do not even have "logic" to work with?

Let me guess?

You need to borrow "my concept" of "laws of logic", which derives from a worldview that a Creator supplied them, to shore up your "worldview", whilst claiming you do not need them?

Rational discussion itself is impossible without laws of logic.

So you cannot even engage in this discussion if you stand on your own worldview...

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Quote:

I don't believe there are universal laws of logic.

So then how can you "reason"?

If there are no universal "laws of logic", you cannot "reason".

Even Einstein couldn't fully develop a universal theory. And that's a theory, not a law. That has been elusive for even the most brilliant mathematicians. Now unless you are saying you have that kind of brain power, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

How can you perform a scientific experiment without "laws of logic"?

Well when we do experiments we are basically eliminating what doesn't work so that what is left allows us to formulate theories. These are localized types of logic that help us describe our universe. We also know that there are levels of complexity that don't seem to conform to our rules, so we never assume that we have these universal laws.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

How can you do "maths", without "laws of logic"?

How can you share ideas without "laws of logic"?

The word is Math not maths. Math is singular and plural.

You keep ignoring the distinction between universal and special case use of the rules of logic. I have given you a number of examples that demonstrate that we use different forms of logic depending on the situation and you keep ignoring them and repeating the same fallacy over and over. The fallacy that you are promoting is that complexity means there is a god when there is no logical correlation that can be made with that alone.

And you keep breaking the laws of logic and debate by using a Straw Man technique. You ignore the following facts.

I have never said there are no logical rules.

I have repeatedly said that I have no idea why the universe has the order that it does and you have offered no alternative other than a claim that the biblical god made it that way.

I can function perfectly well on a pragmatic basis. All of us function quite well without complete knowledge of the world and the bodies we live in. So I see no basis for your claim that I am denying the validity of math and science.

Everything in our experience has a conditional validity. It is only valid based on the repeatability of our experiments. That is what our logic is based on. In modern science we know we don't have universal laws because the rules that we have set up now don't work in every case on the macro and micro level.

Again, as far as to why the universe behaves the way it does, I have to say I don't know.

You claim that you do know and that you can prove it. I haven't seen that proof yet. Demonstrating a negative of my position is not a proof of yours. Like I said, I think we are both wrong. I admit that I don't know and whatever I propose is the best guess I can come up with. You claim to know, so the burden of proof is on you. Once you present some proof then it is my burden to address your evidence.

Here is a list of logical fallacies that might help you see this.

Link for logical fallacies

You are confusing two things here.

1. Basic universal laws of logic.

2. Scientificly discovered laws.

You are arguing that number 2, is number 1.

But in fact, discovering number 2 is absolutely impossible without number 1.

Mark :-)

[cardw]

Quote:

So again, you imply Christianity is illogical, but how, how is it illogical, when you do not even have "logic" to work with?

No I am saying that you have no basis to claim that Christianity makes the most sense. Christianity makes sense if you stay within it's world view.

Again with the straw man.

Quote:

No Cardw, you have to answer this, you are stating there are "no universal laws of logic".

I have pointed them out to you.

You have pointed them out to me from a web site that people answer each other's questions. LOL Now really, that's pretty funny.

Now I have pointed out to you applications where they aren't universal. They don't answer every ethical problem.

And it's becoming quite apparent that you don't even know how to explain how they work, but you can find names for them. LOL

Quote:

It is now for you to try and recover some "credence" for your worldview.

I am under no obligation to recover credence since I am freely admitting that I don't know. And I'm not trying to convert anyone to any specific world view. I am simply refuting your claim that Christianity makes the most sense.

And so far, you haven't spent any time demonstrating that.

Quote:

You need to borrow "my concept" of "laws of logic", which derives from a worldview that a Creator supplied them, to shore up your "worldview", whilst claiming you do not need them?

Ok, I give up.

I really got the laws from my belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Church of the FSM

[Felix Florimon]

I find Christian explanations to be largely based in fear and rely on the devaluation of humans.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I find Christian explanations to be largely based in fear and rely on the devaluation of humans.

Just tell how the statement written in John 3:16, the foundation of Christian thinking, is based on fear and how such thinking relies on the devaluation of humans.

[cardw]

You need to borrow "my concept" of "laws of logic", which derives from a worldview that a Creator supplied them, to shore up your "worldview", whilst claiming you do not need them?

I want to address this separately because this assumption of yours that you own the rules of logic is simply an empty claim.

I can claim that I own the rules of logic since I can derive them from a worldview that the Flying Spaghetti Monster supplied them and so it is really you who are borrowing them from me.

I can trump everything you say because the Flying Spaghetti Monster provides me with the belief system that makes the most sense. I don't need to provide you any evidence because you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. And since the consequences of not believing in the Flying Spaghetti monster are so horrible, you might as well believe just in case I'm right.

Does any of this sound familiar?

[Felix Florimon]

The issue with Christianity is its basic message either states or strongly implies that you will die unless you accept it. That is fear based.

It devalues humans by teaching that they are born sinful and incapable of being anything other than evil.

The “issue with Christianity” and the issue that Jesus proposes in John 3:16 may be two different ones. The issue brought to our attention by Jesus is that He presents Himself in the Bible as “the truth, the way and the life.” Such presentation doesn’t devalue me as a person because I am quite aware that I have a human mind with the ability of being wrong (I cannot say as Jesus said “I am the truth…”). When Jesus says: “I am the life…” I don’t get devalued when I think about my ability to get physically and mentally disabled and finally dead because I was born with a body that is by itself dysfunctional for eternal life. If I try to have my life shaped according to Jesus’ teachings is because I have become aware that God feels that I have a need so my eternal life does not constitute a threat to the happiness of my fellow created beings (even today in any nation on this earth we have many people needing to be locked up so they don’t become a threat to public safety).

Our issue as Christians is our great need to avoid falling in moral corruption, our great need to overcome suffering, illness and finally death. Now, the issue of our Lord Jesus is a different one. His issue is the issue of love: God, our source and Creator loves us and wishes that we may love above anything else the Source, Father or Creator that has made our existence possible and that we use a rightful sense of fairness when we love ourselves so we could love those who share our existence on this universe in the same way that we love ourselves. In such new universe proposed by our common Creator there will not be pain, suffering, death or ill will against anyone. The only fear that we have is that if it is truthful that there is only one source for everything that exist, ignoring such source or God will put us in way that eternal life would become unobtainable. If somebody told you that the only way you could be kept physically alive is by breathing air, don’t you think it would healthy for you to avoid anything that could take away from you the ability to breath? There is nothing evil or wrong with fear when such fear helps us to take healthy and good attitudes in life.

FF

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The issue with Christianity is its basic message either states or strongly implies that you will die unless you accept it. That is fear based.

It devalues humans by teaching that they are born sinful and incapable of being anything other than evil.

The “issue with Christianity” and the issue that Jesus proposes in John 3:16 may be two different ones. The issue brought to our attention by Jesus is that He presents Himself in the Bible as “the truth, the way and the life.” Such presentation doesn’t devalue me as a person because I am quite aware that I have a human mind with the ability of being wrong (I cannot say as Jesus said “I am the truth…”).

Quoting me more Bible texts doesn't answer the claim that Christianity makes more sense. The word "sense" implies that there is a rational, not authoritarian explanation. Quoting John 3:16 is irrelevant to the goal of explaining why Christianity makes sense, it only repeats what it claims.

According to Christianity, through no fault of our own, we are born on this planet doomed to die. And we are required to choose only one option or die.

That is a fear based view of life on this planet whether it is true or not.

And to justify this rather arbitrary condition we are informed that because Adam and Eve sinned we are all condemned to suffer on this planet. And we are given a extremely thin amount of evidence for this and the solution is just as convoluted and arbitrary. What about this makes sense?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The issue with Christianity is its basic message either states or strongly implies that you will die unless you accept it. That is fear based.

It devalues humans by teaching that they are born sinful and incapable of being anything other than evil.

[snip]

Quoting me more Bible texts doesn't answer the claim that Christianity makes more sense. The word "sense" implies that there is a rational, not authoritarian explanation. Quoting John 3:16 is irrelevant to the goal of explaining why Christianity makes sense, it only repeats what it claims.

According to Christianity, through no fault of our own, we are born on this planet doomed to die. And we are required to choose only one option or die.

That is a fear based view of life on this planet whether it is true or not.

And to justify this rather arbitrary condition we are informed that because Adam and Eve sinned we are all condemned to suffer on this planet. And we are given a extremely thin amount of evidence for this and the solution is just as convoluted and arbitrary. What about this makes sense?

You almost have me convinced.

[Felix Florimon]

Quoting me more Bible texts doesn't answer the claim that Christianity makes more sense. The word "sense" implies that there is a rational, not authoritarian explanation. Quoting John 3:16 is irrelevant to the goal of explaining why Christianity makes sense, it only repeats what it claims.

[doug yowell]

Well stated, Felix. Let me add that those of us who are convinced that God created this world in the first place also believe that if He was smart enough to know how to create this universe, and keep it going, He's probably smart enough to know the best way to run a world gone wacky!!

[cardw]

I am not quoting the Bible in order to answer a claim that Christianity makes more sense. I am quoting it as a point of reference because Christianity was born from the teachings written in the Bible. If we are talking whether Christianity makes more sense or not we should first examine and quote from the source of its teachings.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

You need to borrow "my concept" of "laws of logic", which derives from a worldview that a Creator supplied them, to shore up your "worldview", whilst claiming you do not need them?

I want to address this separately because this assumption of yours that you own the rules of logic is simply an empty claim.

I can claim that I own the rules of logic since I can derive them from a worldview that the Flying Spaghetti Monster supplied them and so it is really you who are borrowing them from me.

I can trump everything you say because the Flying Spaghetti Monster provides me with the belief system that makes the most sense. I don't need to provide you any evidence because you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. And since the consequences of not believing in the Flying Spaghetti monster are so horrible, you might as well believe just in case I'm right.

Does any of this sound familiar?

All worldviews are based on "assumptions".

The only worldview that will work, is that which is testable.

So the "assumption" is tested, this is the most basic principle of science and logic of all forms.

So "laws of logic" when applied to an "assumption" of God, absolutely work.

But "laws of logic" when applied to the "assumption of no God", absolutely does not work.

This is your position Cardw.

You are stating that you believe your worldview is correct, but then you have to deny simply universal logical laws like the "law of non-contradiction".

You HAVE to deny them, because they deny your worldview.

But the thing is, you actually live by those very "laws of logic" you deny are universal.

You have no choice.

So whilst you are mocking Christianity, you might want to look at your own religious view that are based on "faith" that God does not exist, those views that fail.

Why?

Because they deny the very existance of "logic" itself.

By denying "universal laws of logic" you deny "absolute logic".

Which means you have in truth denied "logic".

What is it about your worldview then, is it that you think is so powerful?

That it has to deny "universal laws of logic" to work?

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

Another simple point:

You contradict yourself...

You say on one hand that "you do not know everything".

But on the other hand you say "I know God does not exist because He has not manifested Himself in my front room".

It seems that you are really stating that you do know everything, because until it manifests itself to you, it is not "anything", so in effect you already know everything...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Felix Florimon

I am not quoting the Bible in order to answer a claim that Christianity makes more sense. I am quoting it as a point of reference because Christianity was born from the teachings written in the Bible. If we are talking whether Christianity makes more sense or not we should first examine and quote from the source of its teachings.

I understand that, but you aren't supplying any reasoning or evidence that it is the best. That is a very difficult thing to prove because it is so fantastic.

Originally Posted By: Felix Florimon

This will give you a fair opportunity to use the same quoting of the Bible in order for you to mention that “something else” that makes more sense than the biblical teaching that is used as the foundation of the Christian way of thinking.

Well the something else that I refer to is telling the truth and being rigorously honest about what I claim to be true. I haven't seen that kind of honesty from your descriptions and I will outline why.

Originally Posted By: Felix Florimon

However, it seems that you have cornered yourself in a state of denial and negativity. You say that Christianity is not the religion that makes more sense in the world. You just take a negative attitude to anything you mention to be written in the Bible.

This is an example of you ignoring the rationales that I have presented. Instead of answering them you choose to point out what you think is a character flaw in me. This is not a method to make sense of ideas. Instead you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing. You are interpreting me with a negative attitude. And this is a form of dishonesty and something that I find quite often with Christian believers. When there is a lack of evidence and rational thinking around their idea or belief, they resort to personal attack. I am not offended by this, but am simply pointing out your lack of rationales.

Originally Posted By: Felix Florimon

When I come with a quotation from the Bible then you just say: “Quoting me more Bible texts doesn't answer the claim that Christianity makes more sense.” However, you don’t come with any proven way of thinking showing that biblical teaching is something preposterous.

I haven't? You haven't been reading my posts. Simply try and answer the objections I have already put forward and you will soon find out how preposterous is the claim that Christianity makes the MOST sense.

Explain to me this one. In a perfect world, even a world with free choice, what motivation would Satan have to rebel? What could he possibly hope to gain, knowing everything he knew? He would have to be willfully ignorant of god's power, which would mean he had to practice self deception. He would have to invent jealousy and ignore the futility of jealousy. In short he would have to be insane, which would mean that he wasn't created perfect.

Now, if god is just, how is it fair to pit very young humans against a being that could possibly be trillions of years old. I can deceive a 5 year old with no effort at all and the spread of years is very minimal. What chance would Adam and Eve have? And this ignores the injustice of laying the punishment on the whole human race. In fact god exacerbated the problem by telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Who chooses who gets to be born on this planet? Where is the justice in that?

Now the apologetic is that god is trying to demonstrate the terrible nature of sin at our expense and at the expense of years of suffering, loss of life, and only a remnant of people saved out of all of that. That paints a picture of god playing chess with millions of lives and Christians argue that god has a right to do this and we have no right to complain about that. Well no one complains because you will soon be dead or part of an experiment to point out what happens to people who disobey god. He sounds more like a Mafia boss. But we are supposed to say that he is loving. How crazy is that?

Originally Posted By: Felix Florimon

In order to say that Christianity is not the religion that makes more sense in the world, you just rest on the assertion that no one is able to prove that “Christianity is the religion that makes more sense of the world.

And what is the problem with that? Making sense implies that you have proof and evidence.

I just have to stop here because this last statement demonstrates that there is no reasoning with believers.

I'll leave you with this. What evidence would convince you that Christianity was a myth?

The answer is that there is none.

All worldviews are based on assumption that is then open to testing and examination Cardw, do you accept that?

Mark :-)

[olger]

Only in Jesus the Christ do we find the answers to life's four existential questions. All other endeavors are but wanderings in the barren fields of narcissism.

regards,

oG