Statements on Christianity that need to be addressed

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;139487 wrote:

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that a divine creator beyond our comprehension created the universe

Any explanation beyond our comprehension cannot possibly be simple...

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 08:56 AM ----------

wayne;139516 wrote:

actually, he didn't say simple he said simplest.
are we to believe that there is no power at the begining, or that there is no begining at all?
i don't think we can compare abstract problems to a cat in a closet it's just not that simple
Until we find a better answer, whats wrong with calling the underlying power, that we all know must exist, God.
why must everyone get thier back up and start defining that word anytime someone mentions it?
It seems the whole idea of god means he,it,defys defining by our tiny finite human mind.

You may be talking about two qualities not at all related... The force released in the creation of the universe might be the universe, and nothing exterior to it, and the order we find in almost every partiical of matter may be a part of only the matter we see... We want to presume an ordering and creating force, and a causual explanation almost demands such an explanation; but our presumptions tell us very little of the nature of that cause, which may have been accident as much as intent...

So what if I seek a cause behind every cause??? Does that ever get me to a first cause, or tell me a single thing about that first cause...God is not a reality, but an infinite, or at best, a moral question; because God or no God, we must still learn to live with one another while preserving our environment for future generations...And from what I can see, those who thrive on belief are the least inclined to be rational about their morality or the real consequences of their actions on the future...

@Krumple,

Krumple;139534A lack of definition makes the word meaningless. Or a meaningless word, what is the point in having it, if it is meaningless? Why not call it Isgababa then?.[/QUOTE wrote:

I think I should clarify. the original meaning of the term god, as i understand, was the description " I Am, the alpha and the omega".
I don''t' see people sticking to that meaning, too much has been added.
All that extra baggage is confusing and it scares people

i definitely appreciate your view, we simply make opposite choices at the base level. I think the leap of faith is a very real choice we all are faced with, maybe the only choice that is truly our own, no one can make it for us.

Believe me when I say, I fully understand the other side of the coin. And I reserve the right to change my mind at anytime.

@wayne,

wayne;139604 wrote:

the original meaning of the term god, as i understand, was the description " I Am, the alpha and the omega".
I don''t' see people sticking to that meaning, too much has been added.

As far as I can tell, all concepts of god include at least these three components:
1) gods are in control of but distinct from one or more natural phenomena
2) gods have independent volition
3) gods can be influenced or controlled by human beings.

@Krumple,

Krumple;139534A lack of definition makes the word meaningless. Or a meaningless word, what is the point in having it, if it is meaningless? Why not call it Isgababa then?.[/QUOTE wrote:

I think I should clarify. the original meaning of the term god, as i understand, was the description " I Am, the alpha and the omega".
I don''t' see people sticking to that meaning, too much has been added.

i definitely appreciate your view, we simply make opposite choices at the base level. I think the leap of faith is a very real choice we all are faced with, maybe the only choice that is truly our own, no one can make it for us.

Believe me when I say, I fully understand the other side of the coin. I reserve the right to change my mind at anytime.

As far as the chemical reaction goes, I see the truth in it but i think it fails to explain creativity very well. It might work ok for birds, each species builds a similar nest. But how can the same chemical reactions produce such widely varied creations and opinions in the human species?

@wayne,

wayne;139609 wrote:

how can the same chemical reactions produce such widely varied creations and opinions in the human species?

Here you go: The Ant World: Amazon.co.uk: Derek Wragge morley: Books

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;139606 wrote:

As far as I can tell, all concepts of god include at least these three components:
1) gods are in control of but distinct from one or more natural phenomena
2) gods have independent volition
3) gods can be influenced or controlled by human beings.

thats a new one for me, rather restrictive though.

how about " Either god is everything or he is nothing"
kinda lets it out of the box. for me

@wayne,

wayne;139612 wrote:

" Either god is everything or he is nothing"

As there are thousands of gods, in hinduism alone, and these gods have at least partial exclusivity, that would mean that gods are nothing.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;139613 wrote:

As there are thousands of gods, in hinduism alone, and these gods have at least partial exclusivity, that would mean that gods are nothing.

No offense ,but given the advancement in knowledge we know today, that seems a bit archaic to me.

@wayne,

wayne;139616 wrote:

No offense ,but given the advancement in knowledge we know today, that seems a bit archaic to me.

Meaning what, now we know that there is only one god? Gods are imaginary, in any case, for theists as much as for atheists, neither you nor anyone else gets to decide what other people imagine.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;139617 wrote:

Meaning what, now we know that there is only one god? Gods are imaginary, in any case, for theists as much as for atheists, neither you nor anyone else gets to decide what other people imagine.

I prefer to think its a leap of faith to believe in god, not my imagination.

my understanding of that god [or gods] advances through my personal experience and the seeking of knowledge

@wayne,

wayne;139622 wrote:

I prefer to think its a leap of faith to believe in god, not my imagination.

my understanding of that god [or gods] advances through my personal experience and the seeking of knowledge

Fine. The Ant World is almost unreadably boring, I recommend this: Cult Status

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;139623 wrote:

Fine. The Ant World is almost unreadably boring, I recommend this: Cult Status

are you trying to widen my peephole
get your own peephole

really, thanks for the brain food, i gotta go fishing now

@wayne,

wayne;139627 wrote:

are you trying to widen my peephole

How you live is up to you, as it goes you have the great fortune to live in an age when the recorded experiences of millions of people are available. Whether or not you avail yourself of any harvest from that resource, isn't my responsibility.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;139630 wrote:

How you live is up to you, as it goes you have the great fortune to live in an age when the recorded experiences of millions of people are available. Whether or not you avail yourself of any harvest from that resource, isn't my responsibility.

balance is crucial
the best harvest may be the experience itself

@Krumple,

Krumple;138864 wrote:

I don't think I have ever seen this anywhere or even said. If it has been said it was not by anyone intelligent because there is a logical possibility that if such a being existed, it could have relied on evolution for life to develop. So how would it disprove a god?

The only argument you can make any where near this statement is to say that evolution discredits original sin. It can't disprove the existence of a god or gods, but it can poke holes in the original sin story.

How exactly does it "poke holes" in the creation story? Well if all life on earth has evolved from simpler life forms then by all means, humans didn't just magically appear along with the other animals. It has been a process of ongoing changes and adaptations for millions of years. So humans didn't come from one or two people but instead a biological process of species to species changes. Therefore there could have been no original humans to do anything wrong.

So if you ever hear someone say that evolution disproves the existence of god, they are a moron. Even though I don't believe in any gods or god making a statement like that requires further investigation.

Dawkins said something very close. Do you really think that he is not intelligent? Dawkins is a very bright person. Even if you disagree with him it would be foolish to think him stupid/not intelligent.

I don't think Dawkins meant logical implication when he said something in the lines of evolution disproving (the christian) god. That would be a misinterpretation.

@Emil,

Emil;139634 wrote:

Dawkins said something very close. Do you really think that he is not intelligent? Dawkins is a very bright person. Even if you disagree with him it would be foolish to think him stupid/not intelligent.

I don't think Dawkins meant logical implication when he said something in the lines of evolution disproving (the christian) god. That would be a misinterpretation.

I have never read any of Dawkin's books, but could you actually provide the quote. Saying that he said something similar is rather vague, not to mention it could be misinterpreted.

I could see him saying, that since evolution is true, there is no need for a god. But this doesn't mean that evolution disproves the existence of a god or gods.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 01:04 PM ----------

Alan McDougall;139487 wrote:

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that a divine creator beyond our comprehension created the universe

I want to point out that something was left out. A rule of Occum's Razor was neglected here so let me correct something. It is not the case that the simplest explanation is the rational one, instead it is the explanation that uses the fewest assumptions, is the rational one.

So when determining a piece of key information about an experience. The best explanation to conclude with is the one that uses the fewest amount of assumptions.

So going back to the sound in the closet analogy. You would not assume god created the sound because it requires too many assumptions, meaning that there would have to be another possibility.

@Krumple,

Krumple;139638 wrote:

I have never read any of Dawkin's books, but could you actually provide the quote. Saying that he said something similar is rather vague, not to mention it could be misinterpreted.

I could see him saying, that since evolution is true, there is no need for a god. But this doesn't mean that evolution disproves the existence of a god or gods.

Ok. Bad for you. He is an excellent science writer/educator. Widely known for his The Selfish Gene, and also The Blind Watchmaker and The Extended Phenotype.

Anyway, it was in relation to one of them cases in an american court. Dawkins thinks that evolution leads to atheism. This would potentially make teaching of evolution conflict with the amendment that forbids religions in schools in the US.

Anyway, it is mentioned in his The God Delusion, you may want to read that if you want to know. You don't seem to be interesting enough for me to look up the book and find a quote for you.

@Emil,

Emil;139691 wrote:

Anyway, it was in relation to one of them cases in an american court. Dawkins thinks that evolution leads to atheism. This would potentially make teaching of evolution conflict with the amendment that forbids religions in schools in the US.

I can see this as a possibility but only because of what I already mentioned. To understand evolution things like the creation story come into question. How is it you can have two original humans if humans are nothing more than evolved species? You can't so if evolution is true, the bibles creation story gets canceled out. Not to mention there are a dozen other bible stories that get canceled out as well if evolution is true. So if you completely cancel out the bible then it starts to call into question the whole god concept of the bible or jesus himself being nothing more than a normal person who got elevated to the status of god like because of the need for the church.

Emil;139691 wrote:

Anyway, it is mentioned in his The God Delusion, you may want to read that if you want to know. You don't seem to be interesting enough for me to look up the book and find a quote for you.

Well I have no intention at all to even read his work. I really don't care what he has to say to be honest. I would consider him preaching to the choir. I am not saying I know everything he knows, I just don't care for his approach, but I am not saying his work is worthless, I just have no interest in reading it. I would rather read a work that is the opposing challenge to evolution. I already believe there is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true, so why do I need anything else telling me it's true. I would rather read some work that protests against the facts of evolution.

@Alan McDougall,

There are no serious protests against evolution, nor the major aspects of evolutionary theory.

@Emil,

Emil;139740 wrote:

There are no serious protests against evolution, nor the major aspects of evolutionary theory.

Not sure where you are looking, but there are quite a few works from both sides. Some are from theists which is to be expected and others are from the scientific community that feel the theory gets too much credit in ways it hasn't quite been accountable for.

I agree though that to debate it you must have a very strong argument against it, despite the fact that some theists like Kent Hoven or Ken Ham try to distort information to discredit the theory. There are theists who follow them and use the same flawed arguments to sell books, but regardless I like to see what new arguments they try to come up with.

Philosophy Forum

Statements on Christianity that need to be addressed

Quick Links

My Account

able2know