Christianity requires no proof?

[mwfanelli2]

Michael,

Please follow me on this...For argument's sake, the assumption is that God exists.

Edit: I'm going to amend my statement above to make it easier for you to answer, since I wouldn't want you to think you're having to admit to God existing:

"For argument's sake the assumption is, should God exist..." (And then my question below should follow.)

Therefore, would it not seem reasonable for God to provide humans with good reason to believe what Christianity claims if indeed he expects their belief in those claims?

I am not asking you if you believe there are good reasons to believe (I can deal with that later), but whether or not it is logical and rational for man to expect God to provide good reasons for men to believe.

I know you understand what I am asking here.

Good grief, I do... But you are missing my point! This is all fantasy to me. "Assume god exists..." Well, I could also say "Assume pigs can fly, then would they fly in formation or singly"? You are making a massive assumption that for you makes sense, but to me is no different than assuming pigs can fly! What possible point is there in me guessing what some made-up supernatural creature would do? I am not a writer of fantasy novels!

OK, here is a fantasy answer. The actions of an all-knowing all-seeing supernatural creature would be well beyond all thought, rational and irrational, created by puny human brains. We could never know.

They do admit themselves to yes or no answers. Besides, I did allow room for further commentary should you feel it necessary. But your comments are mute at this point since you have yet to answer to the fundamental question.

I have answered your questions but in ways you did not like. Maybe you just don't see it but you are making GIANT assumptions, implicit and explicit, and getting frustrated because I just can't accept them! The difference here is clear: you see your faith as obvious as the sun rising tomorrow, I don't. Your questions are, once again, fantasy situations with no relevant answers!

There is nothing wrong with faith itself (although the consequences are devastating). If you CHOOSE to assume that god exists, fine. If you choose not to, fine. But please, try to see the question from a viewpoint not so invested in the "proper" answers.

[walterick]

"God is a Spirit, Creator, an object of worship."

So am I

But, how did you come to that definition of what God is?

"Divine revelation."

What's that?

"how do you know God doesn't care?"

I don't know if God doesn't care. There is no evidence that he does. If God does exist in the form that Christianity says he does, then he clearly allows us to do as we please, which would actually be evidence that God doesn't care. But, it's certainly a comforting thought to believe that he does.

[mn shutterbug]

Walter, you're an object of worship? Maybe in your wildest dreams.

How do you classify yourself as a spirit?


You may create photographs, but God created the heavens and the earth. He is a real creator.

Yes, God allows us to make our own decisions. He allows man to harden their hearts, which evidentally you have. Have you ever heard the saying, "you made your bed, now you can lie in it"? We have been warned thru prophecys and the Bible. If we fail to listen, we shall pay the ultimate price.

[walterick]

Heheh. Well, that was partly supposed to be funny but since you bit I'll play

Aren't all people spirits (or souls) from the Christian perspective? I thought they believed we're all spirits who move on to heaven/hell after our bodies die?

Just because I didn't create the Earth doesn't mean I'm not a creator ;)

And as for worship, well I could probably dig up a few fans

As for your other comment, I would be curious to see how you decided that I have a hardened heart. That should be fun. And, if you're trying to warn me off about hell, you'll have to provide some evidence it exists first. From a logic-based perspective, the existence of a hell in Christian mythology directly contradicts their concept of an all-loving God. I have not yet understood how Christians believe you can have both.

Oh, and my bed is very comfy thank you

[mwfanelli2]

Walter, you're an object of worship? Maybe in your wildest dreams.

How do you classify yourself as a spirit?


You may create photographs, but God created the heavens and the earth. He is a real creator.

Yes, God allows us to make our own decisions. He allows man to harden their hearts, which evidentally you have. Have you ever heard the saying, "you made your bed, now you can lie in it"? We have been warned thru prophecys and the Bible. If we fail to listen, we shall pay the ultimate price.

Isn't all this the equivalent of "If you don't go to sleep now the Boogey Man will get you"?

[schrackman]

Heheh. Well, that was partly supposed to be funny but since you bit I'll play

Yes, I know that was tongue in cheek.

Aren't all people spirits (or souls) from the Christian perspective? I thought they believed we're all spirits who move on to heaven/hell after our bodies die?

From the Christian perspective, people are spirit, body and soul, and not just spirit. When a person dies without Christ, their spirits/souls do go to hell. In the day of judgment, their bodies will be raised again from the dead, united to their spirit/soul, and then are cast into the final abode of the wicked, the lake of fire.

Just because I didn't create the Earth doesn't mean I'm not a creator ;)

And as for worship, well I could probably dig up a few fans

True, you can create things, but on the same token you are not the Creator of all things. Neither do you hold the universe together by your own power nor provide all things for man's existence. Therefore, any worship directed toward you (or any person for that matter) would be misplaced.

As for your other comment, I would be curious to see how you decided that I have a hardened heart. That should be fun

According to Christianity, a person hardens his heart by continually rejecting God's Gospel message of repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ. The longer one lives the harder his heart gets toward God and the less inclined he becomes to accepting the Gospel.

From a logic-based perspective, the existence of a hell in Christian mythology directly contradicts their concept of an all-loving God. I have not yet understood how Christians believe you can have both.

It doesn't contradict an all-loving God because God is also holy and just. Consequently, as an all-loving God he extends his mercy to all for salvation. Salvation from what? The condemnation due to sin. Thus if one rejects God's mercy and pardon, he will inevitably suffer the eternal consequences. So Hell doesn't violate God's nature at all.

Hell, as a concept, is not as hard to grasp as you might think because it accords with the concept of justice. In society we punish criminals for their crimes; God, likewise, punishes for sin. A criminal act may only take seconds to commit, yet he must serve an exponentially greater amount of time incarcerated for that crime. The sinner, in the same way, has lived a lifetime of sin and rebellion against God; consequently, his sentence is for all eternity.

Whether one thinks this is fair or not is really irrelevant. The offender does not get to dictate what his sentence will be. That is up to the discretion of the judge.

I'll have to get to your other post sometime later today.

Michael, I'll have to get to yours later today too.

Right now I'm headed to Disneyland...to meet up with my daughters.

[mn shutterbug]

Ray, thanks for stepping in and explaining these things to Walter. You summed things up better than I could have done.

[walterick]

I suppose what's entertaining the most is how eagerly Christians will villify anyone who claims to be God. Except Jesus, who is to be exalted. Even though Jesus himself said we are all Gods...

"According to Christianity, a person hardens his heart by continually rejecting God's Gospel message of repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ."

Then according to Christianity, a hardened heart have I.

"It doesn't contradict an all-loving God because God is also holy and just. Consequently, as an all-loving God he extends his mercy to all for salvation. Salvation from what? The condemnation due to sin. Thus if one rejects God's mercy and pardon, he will inevitably suffer the eternal consequences. So Hell doesn't violate God's nature at all."

God created hell. God created sin. God deliberately created the very process by which we burn in hell. That doesn't sound loving, fair, or just to me. To say nothing of "divine."

"Hell, as a concept, is not as hard to grasp as you might think because it accords with the concept of justice. In society we punish criminals for their crimes; God, likewise, punishes for sin. A criminal act may only take seconds to commit, yet he must serve an exponentially greater amount of time incarcerated for that crime. The sinner, in the same way, has lived a lifetime of sin and rebellion against God; consequently, his sentence is for all eternity."

Not necessarily. My conversations with Christians have informed me that a person can live their entire life in sin, only to accept Christ right at the end and be saved. It seems then, that I could sin for 100 years, accept Christ on my deathbed, and move on to heaven. And this you call "justice?"

I'm just going to ask bluntly... what evidence is there in the cosmos that hell exists? People can point to feelings and miraculous events as evidence of a God. But what events do we have supporting the notion of a hell? What evidence? What logic? What experience? Or might it just be easier just to say that hell is a cultural belief? Like the North Pole or Valhalla? This concept of hell seems to be the "fear" by which Christians can scare people into their belief system. "Believe our beliefs, or else..."

[walterick]

Well, keep your thinking cap on. I have plenty more questions

[mwfanelli2]

I'm just going to ask bluntly... what evidence is there in the cosmos that hell exists? People can point to feelings and miraculous events as evidence of a God. But what events do we have supporting the notion of a hell? What evidence? What logic? What experience? Or might it just be easier just to say that hell is a cultural belief? Like the North Pole or Valhalla? This concept of hell seems to be the "fear" by which Christians can scare people into their belief system. "Believe our beliefs, or else..."

To be even more blunt: the concept of hell and the devil are attempts to explain why things go bad and why people act so horrribly towards each other (especially the faithful). Whenever something doesn't match the "goodness of god" you can scream out "The devil made me do it!"

You are arguing a lost cause here. People of faith are all too often ashamed to admit that their beliefs are, indeed, faith and not provable by any logical means. This is a silly feeling to have as faith is certainly one of the ways to look at the universe. Some prefer the logical, some the supernatural, some the emotional, some the philosophical. Yet its those who believe in the supernatural that fight the hardest to "logically prove" the road they have chosen.

[schrackman]

Hi Michael,

Good grief, I do... But you are missing my point! This is all fantasy to me. "Assume god exists..." Well, I could also say "Assume pigs can fly, then would they fly in formation or singly"? You are making a massive assumption that for you makes sense, but to me is no different than assuming pigs can fly! What possible point is there in me guessing what some made-up supernatural creature would do? I am not a writer of fantasy novels!

Perhaps not, but then one doesn't have to be a writer of fantasy novels to work with an assumption. Scientists do it all the time. Why won't you?

Edit: But if you like I can rephrase the question so that you won't have to deal with the assumption of God.

[schrackman]

Hi Rick,

Since I already answered some of your other points I'll just answer this:

But, how did you come to that definition of what God is?

"Divine revelation." What's that?

The Scriptures, otherwise known as the Bible.

I don't know if God doesn't care. There is no evidence that he does. If God does exist in the form that Christianity says he does, then he clearly allows us to do as we please, which would actually be evidence that God doesn't care. But, it's certainly a comforting thought to believe that he does.

If you do not know whether God cares or not, then may I suggest it was a bit presumptuous for you to say "Who cares?"

Furthermore, God doesn't allow us to do as we please, at least not with impunity. Rather he has given man freewill, the freedom to choose between good and evil. In this way not only is every man held accountable for his own actions, but he will likewise be recompensed accordingly.

[schrackman]

I suppose what's entertaining the most is how eagerly Christians will villify anyone who claims to be God. Except Jesus, who is to be exalted. Even though Jesus himself said we are all Gods.

No Rick, Jesus did not say "we" are all Gods. Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:6, in which those in the Jewish congregation were being denounced for having "accepted the persons of the wicked" rather than rendering true justice to the Jewish people. In other words, God was using sarcasm as a means to convey how arrogant and proud these people had become in turning away from God's commandments. But God said they would "die like men." The crowd Jesus was facing when he quoted this Psalm were of a similar disposition and thus he employed the same argument against them.

Then according to Christianity, a hardened heart have I.

Correct. But it doesn't have to stay that way, either for you or anyone else.

God created hell.

Yes, originally for the devil and his angels.

God created sin.

The biblical definition of sin is the "transgression of the law." Consequently, Adam is the one who brought sin into this world since he was the first to transgress the law that God gave him. Adam created sin when he disobeyed God.

God deliberately created the very process by which we burn in hell. That doesn't sound loving, fair, or just to me. To say nothing of "divine."

Of course it doesn't sound fair, just or loving to you when you misconstrue the God of the Bible and the process by which one becomes condemned by him. But I understand it is much easier to blame God than take responsibility for one's own sin. After all, who wants to acknowledge their own sin and the consequences for sin? Adam did the same thing after God interrogated him for his sin by saying "The woman you gave me...." It was all God's fault because he gave Adam a wife, right? It couldn't be that Adam made a conscious, volitional choice, could it?

Not necessarily. My conversations with Christians have informed me that a person can live their entire life in sin, only to accept Christ right at the end and be saved. It seems then, that I could sin for 100 years, accept Christ on my deathbed, and move on to heaven. And this you call "justice?"

No, I call it mercy and pardon, which God offers to all men. Justice is to punish an offender for his crimes/sin. But mercy and pardon forgive sins committed. Do you now you wish to fault God for being so gracious as to even forgive someone on his deathbed? I would think this would instead cause you deeply contemplate just how long-suffering God is toward man, just how far he is willing to extend his goodness.

I'm just going to ask bluntly... what evidence is there in the cosmos that hell exists? People can point to feelings and miraculous events as evidence of a God. But what events do we have supporting the notion of a hell? What evidence? What logic? What experience? Or might it just be easier just to say that hell is a cultural belief? Like the North Pole or Valhalla? This concept of hell seems to be the "fear" by which Christians can scare people into their belief system. "Believe our beliefs, or else..."

The logic or rationale in hell is that ultimately no ungodly, impenitent person will go unpunished. They will not escape having to pay for their evil deeds, though in this life they may seem to have escaped accountability for their deeds.

The problem that some unbelievers have, however, is that they just can't be satisfied one way or the other. If God sends people to hell, then they take him for a cruel, sadistic monster. On the other hand, if they don't think God is doing or has done anything about evil in this world, then it must be evidence that he just doesn't care. It's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios in which some unbelievers try to ensure that God will never win in their mind either way.

[schrackman]

To be even more blunt: the concept of hell and the devil are attempts to explain why things go bad and why people act so horrribly towards each other (especially the faithful). Whenever something doesn't match the "goodness of god" you can scream out "The devil made me do it!"

Michael, my friend, never have I heard a Christian (at least not a knowledgable one) say we can blame the devil for making us do something. In fact, I cannot tell you how many times I have preached just the exact opposite. Heaven and Hell is logical because God created us with the ability to choose between good and evil, and therefore be accountable for our choice.

You are arguing a lost cause here. People of faith are all too often ashamed to admit that their beliefs are, indeed, faith and not provable by any logical means. This is a silly feeling to have as faith is certainly one of the ways to look at the universe. Some prefer the logical, some the supernatural, some the emotional, some the philosophical. Yet its those who believe in the supernatural that fight the hardest to "logically prove" the road they have chosen.

It is easy to say Christians cannot "logically" prove something when what they believe is always misconstrued. In those cases nothing can ever be logically proven.


By the way, I have to say that I did not expect this thread to engender so much interest. So I appreciate everyone who has replied thus far.

[mn shutterbug]

By the way, I have to say that I did not expect this thread to engender so much interest. So I appreciate everyone who has replied thus far.

Well, the bible, which I have read, does call christians to witness for Him. I must say, you are doing an excellent job. I sure hope there are many people on this forum that are reading and learning. It is for everyone's own good. If anyone doubts what you are saying, I invite them to read and study the bible, which is undeniably God's Holy Word. Happily, it is nationally, the best selling book, year after year.

[physasst]

Well, the bible, which I have read, does call christians to witness for Him. I must say, you are doing an excellent job. I sure hope there are many people on this forum that are reading and learning. It is for everyone's own good. If anyone doubts what you are saying, I invite them to read and study the bible, which is undeniably God's Holy Word. Happily, it is nationally, the best selling book, year after year.

GREAT discussion, nice to see a fellow minnesotan as well....NOW, on to the discussion. From my time in the military, and from working in that cesspool of humanity known affectionately as the "ER", I cannot under any circumstances have a belief in god. I think the great Carl Sagan put it best...."It is likely that when we die, that is it, no bright light, no afterlife, just nothingness". If god does exist, than he is evil and malevolent. As far as the bible, how exactly is it "undeniably God's Holy Word." Dr Seuss has written extensively as well, would not his writings be considered scripture....Many religious experts agree that the bible was not written for close to 400 years after Christ died. How in any way does that make the bible little more than a book of fables? Christ himself, at least IMO, was little more than another cult leader, albeit, possibly the most famous, enduring one of all time. But how can we tell the difference between him, and say David Koresh? Please keep in mind that I am not trying to antagonize, but rather to question.

Here's a few more....these are not mine, but thought I'd share, as they seem pertinent

Jesus was strongly against public prayer (Matthew 6:5-6).

According to Mark 16:16-18 a true Christian should be baptized, have faith, cast out demons, speak in tongues, take up serpents, be able to heal the sick, and be completely immune to any poison. If you don’t wish to test your poison immunity, you could ignore that part of the holy scriptures and just go by John 3:16 which states that a Christian must believe in Christ as their savior, but then again John 14:12 states that real Christians will be able to perform greater miracles than Christ himself (see also Mat 17:20, 21:21, Mark 11:23, and Luke 17:6). I have received comment that these scriptures only refer to "possible" signs of Christians, but in reading the passages you'll find these are statements by Jesus about what a Christian "shall" do, and taken together it's clear the Bible teaches that Christians should have some sort of abnormal power.

John 1:18 states that no one has seen God. But this is contradicted by Genesis 32:30 which states that Jacob saw his face, Exodus 33:23 which states that Moses saw his backside, and Genesis 18 in which God sits down to have dinner with Abraham (God eats?).

According to Matthew 1:18-21 Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and was thus the product of a virgin birth. But this is contradicted by Romans 1:3, which states that Jesus was conceived by the seed of David according to the flesh (see also Question 11)--as you will see the New Testament authors are a disagreeable lot.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 states that the earth will exist forever. But this is contradicted by 2Peter 3:10, which states that the Earth will burn up with Armageddon, which is really unfortunate for the meek as they were scheduled to inherit it (Mat 5:5).

Jesus says to hate your family in Luke 14:26, and Matthew 10:35-36. He says to abandon your family (including children) to follow him in Matthew 19:29 (It is hard to keep control of followers when they have familial connections questioning their faith). He says to call no man on earth your father in Matthew 23:9, and says to honor your father and mother in Matthew 19:19. Jesus, or his writers, seemed a bit confused.

According to Luke 3:23, Heli was the paternal grandfather of Jesus, but according to Matthew 1:16 and John 4:5 it was Jacob. Mark disagreed (Mark 12:35-37), but Luke and Matthew were determined to make Jesus a descendant of David even at the cost of contradicting their own virgin birth stories and each other

Jesus makes it perfectly clear that he came to cause strife and not peace (Luke 12:51-53, Matthew 10:34), and the historical evidence is there to back him up (the deaths of the Inquisition, the Crusades, witch burning, Northern Ireland, etc.).

The Bible seems to state that God both does and does not favor the righteous. Consider Job, who was a righteous and prosperous man. But to test Job's faith, God sent Satan to ruin his life (Job 2:1-7). How about Exodus 9:12, 10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:8 and so on where God continually "hardened Pharaohs heart” so He could show off in a twisted game of miracles, climaxing in the death of innocent first born gentiles. God himself admits to purposefully creating evil (Isaiah 45:7) and has endorsed many causes even religious conservatives would find offensive (e.g. slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodu 21:2-8, Eph. 6:5, and Col. 3:22). On the other hand Proverbs 12:2 says that a good man has God's favor. As for Jesus, in Matthew 7:7 he states that whatever a man asks of God he will receive (Has no one yet thought to ask for a cure for cancer?). But earlier in Matthew 5:45 Jesus seems to say that God favors neither the good nor the evil.

The Bible believes the Earth is flat, mentioning its ends and corners often (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1). If you are thinking that these were merely strange figures of speech, you are shown to be incorrect by Daniel 4:10-11, where, in a God interpreted dream, a tree grows so high that the whole world can see it. In Daniel 2:35 we have a rock which grows enough to cover the whole earth (only reasonable on a flat earth). Finally, in Matthew 4:5-8 and Luke 4:5 Satan whisks Christ off to a high mountain peak from which they could see "all the kingdoms of the world". I'm sure the Aztecs would have objected to being excluded simply because of the Earth's curvature.

The Bible also thinks the sun moves around a stationary Earth, the moon has its own light, and that stars can detach from the "firmament" to fall to earth (Isaiah 13:10, Psalm 19:4-5, 1Sam 2:8, 1Chr 16:30, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Micah 6:2, Mat 214:29, Rev 8:10). The Bible shows the value of Pi to be 3 and unless mathematics has somehow changed in 3000 years we now know it to be an irrational 3.14159265358979... (2Chronicles 4:2, 1King7:23). The Bible states that light didn't refract through water drops to create rainbows until god altered the laws of physics (for just water I guess) as a promise never to flood the earth again (Gen 9:13). In the realm of genetics the Bible gives this helpful breading tip--if you let your goats copulate while looking at striped rods they will produce striped baby goats (Gen 30:37-43). One last one--The Bible also blames such ailments as blindness and the inability to speak on demon position (Mat 9:32,12:22). All simple mistakes for early religion-creating humans, but surly not for the infallible word of God. It makes you wonder why the creationists are just focusing on evolution and completely ignoring the antichristian rhetoric of the "Round Earth Theory" being taught to unsuspecting children in our elementary schools.

Today's bible scholars think it went something like the following. Mark, a non-Jewish Roman, was the first gospel writer, writing about 40 years after the purported death of a man named Jesus who may have existed. He collected the loose stories about Jesus from rumors floating around the Christian community and created the first gospel. In looking at the other gospels it becomes clear they used Mark as their base (judging by the verbatim quotes of Mark found in the others), but they were not content with Mark’s portrayal. They wanted a Jesus to rival the Roman gods and conform more to the Old Testament predictions and so added on and edited Mark to fit each of their own particular view of what a Jesus should be like (The virgin birth, the passion play, the baptism, etc.). An easy example of the author’s use of artistic license is found in the instance of the trial of Jesus. We are given a step-by-step account of the events based on old testament prophesy, after being told all the disciples had fled leaving no one to record what actually happened. Many more gospels were written but when the church finally got organized it chose the ones which best fit the organization’s goals. They did a good job of editing as 1500 years later Christianity is one of the stronger religions in spite of its obvious selective reading of the Bible. This book is a collection of myths from a culture quite different from our own, and although the stories may be uplifting, in parts, it is not truth—truth does not contradict its self.


I really don't understand how religious faith has become such a popular and acceptable notion. If I told you that I believed smoking doesn't cause cancer and my only evidence was my hope for such a thing to be true, I'd be ostracized and rightly so. But this is exactly the same pro-faith argument the Bible makes (Hebrews 11:1). By definition it's belief without proof which, in itself, is akin to possession without ownership (I think I may be paraphrasing someone here.), but I'd argue faith is more dangerous than simple theft. Once you decide to give up reason for 100% certainty, a wild and horrible world can, and has in the past, become reasonable (Genocide, terrorism, manifest destiny, witch burning, religious wars, and so on). An unquestionable and deep sense of belief is all a good person needs to commit some of the most horrible acts. But, to most ideologies, faith is necessary for their operation in the face of their inherent contradictions (By my count the Bible mentions faith 402 times). No belief should be held so strongly that it can't be let go when shown to be false, and no honest person who loves truth should call himself or herself a person of faith; to describe yourself in such a way almost seems like an insult.

The Bible warns extensively about false prophets, and philosophies which can lure a person away from "truth" (Col. 2:1-8, 2Peter 2:1-3, John 1:7, Matthew 13:22, Matthew 7:15). Along with faith these commands make Christianity an efficient philosophical perpetual motion machine. The Bible is believed to be unquestionably true through faith and anything contradictory is a falsehood, inspired by the devil, by definition. Why would anyone create such an organization? For starters, it was a great way to combat the injustices and brutalities of long-expired governments. But today it's become the perfect business--tithing and obedience are purchased through bribes and extortion (heaven and hell), and today it's all tax free. It may be frightening initially to live without the comforts of faith, but if we really want purpose, peace, justice and morality, we must first and foremost want truth, and resist the temptation to settle for certainty, no matter how soothing it may be. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. These days “witches” aren’t getting burned at the stake, and you may feel like you're hurting no one with your faith based pleasure, but everyday perfectly just and good people are being stigmatized and others taken advantage of through the workings of faith. Belief is not necessary; uncertainty and skepticism can be comfortable parts of a human life, and I think, in the end, such a life is more humane.

[schrackman]

Oh boy, we've got a live one here.

Physasst, since you didn't write up that shoddy piece of Bible interpretation, and because I have better things to do than spend two hours answering to a lengthly list of shoddy Bible interpretations, let's instead deal with your initial objection to believing in God: your working in an ER, that "cesspool of humanity."

Let me guess...if God did exist, then he must be evil and malevolent for...what? Permitting man to do horrible things to his fellow man? Is that the argument you really wish to advance?

[mn shutterbug]

Physasst, I'm ashamed to call you a fellow Minnesotan. Evidentally, you've never read the bible yourself, or if you have, didn't understand what you were reading. There are tons of bible studies courses available, online and others. I would recommend taking one of them. There are so many inaccuracies in your post, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[physasst]

Oh boy, we've got a live one here.

Physasst, since you didn't write up that shoddy piece of Bible interpretation, and because I have better things to do than spend two hours answering to a lengthly list of shoddy Bible interpretations, let's instead deal with your initial objection to believing in God: your working in an ER, that "cesspool of humanity."

Let me guess...if God did exist, then he must be evil and malevolent for...what? Permitting man to do horrible things to his fellow man? Is that the argument you really wish to advance?

WOW, touched a nerve here did I? And you may need to ask yourself, why is that?

NO, that's not the argument, you're projecting here, I was using those as examples of my life experience. I consider science to be the only viable explanation for just about everything, and as of yet, I have never been able to "prove" that god exists. When you can lay out a verifiable formula as to the existence of god, than perhaps I will change my mind. I am actually open minded about this. I don't hate the concept of "god"....Hell, we're going to church on xmas day, because my wife is lutheran, and wants to go. She knows that I don't believe, but I will be supportive of her and attend.

I actually do believe in a higher power if you will, but it is not a sentient being, rather a field or force, if you will that animates all living things, but it has no concious, and has no "plan".....it just is.

The funny thing is, I was watching an awards ceremony the other evening, and one of the recipients was thanking god for his talent and gifts.....I found it amusing, because he did no thank god for his heroin addiction, he did not thank god for the three times he was arrested for domestic abuse......god seems to be responsible for everything good, and none of the bad. Well, the problem with that is, IF he is the creator of all, then he created evil, which means he is directly responsible for all of the BAD in your life.

One of my best friends is a fundamental christian, and her and I have these talks frequently, she never gets mad, because, as she says, "it is the responsibility of christians to answer these questions, and questioning someones faith is only logical".

[physasst]

WOW, touched a nerve here did I? And you may need to ask yourself, why is that?

NO, that's not the argument, you're projecting here, I was using those as examples of my life experience. I consider science to be the only viable explanation for just about everything, and as of yet, I have never been able to "prove" that god exists. When you can lay out a verifiable formula as to the existence of god, than perhaps I will change my mind. I am actually open minded about this. I don't hate the concept of "god"....Hell, we're going to church on xmas day, because my wife is lutheran, and wants to go. She knows that I don't believe, but I will be supportive of her and attend.

I actually do believe in a higher power if you will, but it is not a sentient being, rather a field or force, if you will that animates all living things, but it has no concious, and has no "plan".....it just is.

The funny thing is, I was watching an awards ceremony the other evening, and one of the recipients was thanking god for his talent and gifts.....I found it amusing, because he did no thank god for his heroin addiction, he did not thank god for the three times he was arrested for domestic abuse......god seems to be responsible for everything good, and none of the bad. Well, the problem with that is, IF he is the creator of all, then he created evil, which means he is directly responsible for all of the BAD in your life.

One of my best friends is a fundamental christian, and her and I have these talks frequently, she never gets mad, because, as she says, "it is the responsibility of christians to answer these questions, and questioning someones faith is only logical".

LOL, Oh, and as far as inaccuracies in my post, please feel free to correct me. I'll stand patiently by and wait.....

[schrackman]

Hi physasst,

WOW, touched a nerve here did I? And you may need to ask yourself, why is that?

I wouldn't say it touched a nerve...it's more like I feel embarrassed that someone actually came to such ridiculous conclusions from the Bible and, what's worse, is that anyone would actually believe such shoddy Bible interpretation! They are not hard to refute, my friend, I just don't care to spend the time. I would have preferred that you had just taken one point and threw that out on the table for discussion.

NO, that's not the argument, you're projecting here, I was using those as examples of my life experience.

Then I don't get what IS your point. You referred to the ER as the "cesspool of humanity." Just what do you mean by that, and why does it prevent you from believing there is a God? Please explain so I can understand where you are coming from. Otherwise you leave me to speculate.

I consider science to be the only viable explanation for just about everything, and as of yet, I have never been able to "prove" that god exists. When you can lay out a verifiable formula as to the existence of god, than perhaps I will change my mind. I am actually open minded about this. I don't hate the concept of "god"....Hell, we're going to church on xmas day, because my wife is lutheran, and wants to go. She knows that I don't believe, but I will be supportive of her and attend.

Well, permit me to first say that's a very considerate thing of you to support your wife in that way.

But getting back to science, keep in mind that the scientific method can never prove anything. Even Stephen Hawking will tell you this about theories. The best one can say is, he might have the correct theory but no one can ever be absolutely sure. The scientific method is a great tool for inquiry but it will not give you a definitive answer because all theories must be refutable. So the scientific method helps us to learn by disproof, not by proving anything true.

I actually do believe in a higher power if you will, but it is not a sentient being, rather a field or force, if you will that animates all living things, but it has no concious, and has no "plan".....it just is.

Out of curiosity, how do you suppose this "force" or "field" can animate anything if the force or field is not animate as well? How can it produce a consciousness in man and animals if it has no consciousness itself? How can it have no plan and yet what results from it looks like to be a well laid out plan (take DNA, for example). This is one of the problems I have with evolution, or more accurately, the proponents of evolution, who speak of it as if it is an intelligent force and yet at the same time claim it has no intelligence or set purpose for what it does.

The funny thing is, I was watching an awards ceremony the other evening, and one of the recipients was thanking god for his talent and gifts.....I found it amusing, because he did no thank god for his heroin addiction, he did not thank god for the three times he was arrested for domestic abuse......god seems to be responsible for everything good, and none of the bad. Well, the problem with that is, IF he is the creator of all, then he created evil, which means he is directly responsible for all of the BAD in your life.

How so? You are ignoring human volition and accountability. If I go out and rob someone's house, you mean to tell me God is to blame for that and not me? Great! What's your address?

One of my best friends is a fundamental christian, and her and I have these talks frequently, she never gets mad, because, as she says, "it is the responsibility of christians to answer these questions, and questioning someones faith is only logical".

And I agree. I don't mind having my faith questioned. That's why I started this thread. But I don't care for flooding a post with so many objections that no one will be able to take the time to refute them.

[mwfanelli2]

Oh boy, we've got a live one here.

Physasst, since you didn't write up that shoddy piece of Bible interpretation, and because I have better things to do than spend two hours answering to a lengthly list of shoddy Bible interpretations, let's instead deal with your initial objection to believing in God: your working in an ER, that "cesspool of humanity."

Let me guess...if God did exist, then he must be evil and malevolent for...what? Permitting man to do horrible things to his fellow man? Is that the argument you really wish to advance?

My goodness. If he gives you a long list of objections with bible references to illustrate and you don't agree, it's "shoddy"? Christians have cherry-picked the bible ever since the early days. Why can't others do the same thing? It appears that you have chosen to believe not only in Christianity but a very particular sect of Christianity. All other interpretations are unacceptable. It isn't as if the bible is clear and logical! Parts of it are actually a mishmash of several narrators mixed together!

And your last paragraph says it all: god can't be blamed for the bad things that happen to mankind. Then join with me and admit that god can also not be given credit for all the good things that happen. Wouldn't it be a great gig if we could all get credit for the good and never get blamed for the bad?

This discussion has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that faith can not be logically proven. Faith is choosing to believe something without logical proof. You and the few others have done absolutely nothing to change this definition. This is just a fact, neither bad nor good.

[mwfanelli2]

But getting back to science, keep in mind that the scientific method can never prove anything. Even Stephen Hawking will tell you this about theories. The best one can say is, he might have the correct theory but no one can ever be absolutely sure. The scientific method is a great tool for inquiry but it will not give you a definitive answer because all theories must be refutable. So the scientific method helps us to learn by disproof, not by proving anything true.

Once again, you miss the difference between faith and science. Yes, the scientific method is used to constantly question and extend our knowledge. As we learn more, we question more, and learn more again. As technology gets better, we can test even more things, challenge even more things, getting closer and closer to the truth. All of this depends on logic, being able to actually make new predictions that can be tested logically. This is how we build on knowledge.

The major difference, as I see it, is that you are totally invested in the search for absolutes, of things that never change, things you can latch onto and never let go. Unfortunately, the universe we live in is all about change. To the logical, change is a challenge, something to be welcomed. To the faithful, it is something to be avoided and defended against. Worse yet, each religion and subset of religion latches on to different things and defends different things.

How is what you believe really any different from what, for example, the Romans believed? Neither group can defend their position any better than the other. Each has their own absolutes, neither can "disprove" the other's absolutes. This is faith.

[physasst]

Hi physasst,
Then I don't get what IS your point. You referred to the ER as the "cesspool of humanity." Just what do you mean by that, and why does it prevent you from believing there is a God? Please explain so I can understand where you are coming from. Otherwise you leave me to speculate.

But getting back to science, keep in mind that the scientific method can never prove anything. Even Stephen Hawking will tell you this about theories. The best one can say is, he might have the correct theory but no one can ever be absolutely sure. The scientific method is a great tool for inquiry but it will not give you a definitive answer because all theories must be refutable. So the scientific method helps us to learn by disproof, not by proving anything true.

Out of curiosity, how do you suppose this "force" or "field" can animate anything if the force or field is not animate as well? How can it produce a consciousness in man and animals if it has no consciousness itself?

1. Ahhhh, the ER, I love working in the ER, I really do, I actually left an orthopedics practice to do this. I love the druggies, the drunks, the psych patients, I love them all, you see, I have no illusions left. Man is an animal, like any other. We all have, and whether we believe it or not, act on animal impulses. I see the worst mankind can offer.

2. True, but the devil is in the details...you see, you are talking about scientific THEORIES, not evidence. I have little faith in those either, only at least they have the prudence to say, we are not sure of this yet, we are still investigating, but this is what we think might be happening. Scientific theories require their own faith, but faith is not knowledge.

3. I don't suppose anything, this field merely helped to energize and enliven the first ameobic bacteria here in the primordial soup. Evolution has done the rest.

IMO, and this is simply my own thoughts, Organized religion may quite possibly be the most evil creation that man has ever devised. MORE people throughout history have been killed in the name of "god" than for any other cause, save disease.

In it's beginning it was necessary, early civilizational leaders recognized that in order to maintain a civil society, people needed to act in a considerate manner towards each other. I understand WHY they did it, make up a deity, include instructions for salvation or punishment based on your behaviour. Every civilization since the dawn of time has done this, but does it make it right? At first glance sure, but we have long since evolved as a modern society past such whimsical dangerous notions. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[schrackman]

My goodness. If he gives you a long list of objections with bible references to illustrate and you don't agree, it's "shoddy"? Christians have cherry-picked the bible ever since the early days. Why can't others do the same thing? It appears that you have chosen to believe not only in Christianity but a very particular sect of Christianity. All other interpretations are unacceptable. It isn't as if the bible is clear and logical! Parts of it are actually a mishmash of several narrators mixed together!

Michael, it’s not that I mind people voicing their objections, but when a person lists 50 or more in one post it’s a tad difficult to respond to them all, don’t you think?

Besides, I know a shoddy Bible interpretation about as well as you can spot a bad physics student. I certainly pointed yours out, didn’t I?

And your last paragraph says it all: god can't be blamed for the bad things that happen to mankind. Then join with me and admit that god can also not be given credit for all the good things that happen. Wouldn't it be a great gig if we could all get credit for the good and never get blamed for the bad?

Correction, God cannot be blamed for bad things that happen when those bad things are the direct result of bad choices that men make. That would be like blaming a kid's parents for his stealing a candy bar from a store, even though the parents had consistently taught the child that stealing was wrong and that he shouldn't do it. Where's the logic in that, Michael?

This discussion has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that faith can not be logically proven. Faith is choosing to believe something without logical proof. You and the few others have done absolutely nothing to change this definition. This is just a fact, neither bad nor good.

As I said before, of course faith cannot be proven logically when Scriptures are misconstrued, taken out of context, or when one builds straw men arguments. But of course that’s what people will do when they don’t wish to even inquire as to whether or not faith can be logically proven.