PDA

View Full Version : reconcilitation = rationalising...?



benedict
Sep 2nd 2008, 02:04 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?

Athanasius
Sep 2nd 2008, 02:57 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?

Want to give some examples?

tango
Sep 2nd 2008, 03:35 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?

Not at all. If anything coming to faith was an act of updating my worldview because I'd come across so many things that broke my existing worldview.

calidog
Sep 2nd 2008, 03:47 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?That's a very general question and I can give a general answer:

All is vanity:


Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

And there is nothing new:

Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.


so I would say no.

ServantofTruth
Sep 2nd 2008, 04:45 PM
Being a New Christian is a differcult time. It's been 10 years so far for me. But when you accept Jesus Christ and begin to read the bible, you do find some 'problems.'

You have so much zeal and want to share the basic truth you have accepted. But the bible itself says we need the whole of scripture -

2 Timothy 3:16 Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live. (my added bold)

Now turn back to 1 Timothy 3:6 Which talks about those officals/ officers, in authority in the church.

'They must not be new followers of the Lord. If they are, they might become proud and be doomed along with the devil.'

Now look at the book of Acts chapter 17: verses 10-12. This tells us of the people of Berea who day after day studied the Scriptures to see if these things are true.

There are easy parts of scripture to understand and yes those that need more personal study. The more i study the more i understand God's Will/ Wisdom and the closer i get to that, the closer i get to everyone in the body/ family of Christ.

I am not brain washed. I have not been taught by any man/ church. I have read the bible alone with the help of the same Holy Spirit that lives in all believers.

God doesn't change. God doesn't contradict himself, not inside or outside of the bible.

In the early days i had the whole jigsaw puzzle in my hand, but had only looked at a few pieces and put them together. I admit there were a few pieces i thought would not fit. In this life i won't ever finish that puzzle - as my loving God has revealed only enough for me to handle in this body and mind - but i have assembled a good majority and yes found places for the strange bits and when i put them in, they didn't look odd anymore and actually were essential to the puzzle.

Believe me, it is unlikely, that i or someone here, hasn't held your odd looking puzzle piece and had the same thought you are having now. Love and peace, SofTy.

Buck shot
Sep 2nd 2008, 08:02 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?
What problems in my faith?

I guess i don't understand the question :)

TrustGzus
Sep 3rd 2008, 06:50 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?Xel asked for some examples. That's a good idea. Benedict, you have a worldview. I'm sure you've encountered things that challenge your belief. Give some examples of how you rationalized those things.

DanDMan64
Sep 3rd 2008, 08:18 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?You probably would be right in saying that, but I would hope you understand that we are individuals as well as brethren, so to paint us all with the same brush would be a mistake.

I can't speak for all Christians in general, but personally there are some core beliefs I will never compromise, and there are some minor doctrinal points I'm willing to be persuaded to change, if they were proven to be right by scripture and confirmed by the conviction of The Holy Spirit that they were so.

By the way, I'm voting for McCain, Obama is just too far to the left for me to even consider him. sorry! :rolleyes:

Pilgrimtozion
Sep 4th 2008, 05:37 PM
would i be right in saying that reconciling your problems in your faith is essentially the act of rationalising things that challange your beliefs?

Hey mate, I hear what you're saying and I cannot deny there are things in my faith that I do not understand. To call them problems would be going too far, but I can understand how some people could perceive them to be problems.

For me, the foundation of my faith is my personal relationship with God. Believing in and living for God per definition implies that certain things are beyond our understanding. If we knew everything God knows and understood everything God understands, we would be God ourselves. The fact that God reveals Himself in Creation also implies that some of those elements are not completely comprehensible.

As such, apparent contradictions may present themselves or things I don't understand. I might encounter 'problems' as you call them, and sometimes that can be difficult. But it doesn't make me question my faith nor do I rationalize those things. I just have to accept the fact that I do not understand everything and cannot comprehend all that goes on. At times that is easy and other times that is a process, but I always come back to the fact that the God is have a personal relationship with is a good God, a God of grace, a God with a plan, a holy God, and a God who is in control.

In other words, because I know God and He has revealed Himself to me, I can accept not understanding everything. I do not need to rationalize things but can rest in the knowledge that God is in control and He knows.

Hope that answers your question!

benedict
Sep 7th 2008, 08:32 PM
Xel asked for some examples. That's a good idea. Benedict, you have a worldview. I'm sure you've encountered things that challenge your belief. Give some examples of how you rationalized those things.well, i personally think i've got it all sewn up in my world view;)

here it is...

drumroll...












i have absolutely no idea how amost everything in the universe works, why we are here, and all that, and i never will. nor will anyone else...unless this bothers them so much that they need to jump to a conclusion in order to make sense of it all.


you know when you think you see a shape in the shaddows that's a person, but it turns out to be something daft like a lamp or something's shaddow or something...? this is because the human brain craves gestalt (wholeness) and quite often sees it where it isn't actually there, because it's natural instinct is to try to make sense of whatever presents it's self in front of it. at the moment, that's kinda how i see religion and spirituality. it's a comfort, a relief, or something that holds everything together and makes sense of everything...which makes sense...but IMO if you look at things objectively, you'll see that we'll never know everything about the universe and how it works, or why were here - but like most other things in the universe, our knowledge is expanding all the time.

benedict
Sep 7th 2008, 08:34 PM
You probably would be right in saying that, but I would hope you understand that we are individuals as well as brethren, so to paint us all with the same brush would be a mistake.

I can't speak for all Christians in general, but personally there are some core beliefs I will never compromise, and there are some minor doctrinal points I'm willing to be persuaded to change, if they were proven to be right by scripture and confirmed by the conviction of The Holy Spirit that they were so.

By the way, I'm voting for McCain, Obama is just too far to the left for me to even consider him. sorry! :rolleyes:
.........sigh..........

benedict
Sep 7th 2008, 08:43 PM
Want to give some examples?
..........dinosaurs?

tango
Sep 7th 2008, 09:39 PM
, that's kinda how i see religion and spirituality. it's a comfort, a relief, or something that holds everything together and makes sense of everything...which makes sense...but IMO if you look at things objectively, you'll see that we'll never know everything about the universe and how it works, or why were here - but like most other things in the universe, our knowledge is expanding all the time.


You're right, we will never know everything this side of heaven. But don't you feel an urge to know more? Or are you honestly happy living your life with a shrug, an "I dunno", and flicking to another TV channel?

Don't you feel an urge to at least know more about what it is that God is offering to you? I figure from the fact you keep coming back here that there must be something about us that interests you, right?

benedict
Sep 7th 2008, 10:25 PM
You're right, we will never know everything this side of heaven. But don't you feel an urge to know more? Or are you honestly happy living your life with a shrug, an "I dunno", and flicking to another TV channel?

Don't you feel an urge to at least know more about what it is that God is offering to you? I figure from the fact you keep coming back here that there must be something about us that interests you, right?
i'm trying to do a course for my work, first andy murray distracts me and now you go and reply to my post. if i don't get this done i hope you realise it's totaly your fault!;)

in reply to the first bit, i think what i actually said in the first post is that knowledge is always expanding - rather the opposite to going "i dunno". i have a very strong urge to know more, but what i want to be utterly sure of (or as sure as possible) is that what i think i know is accurate, and not just what i want to believe.

i personally think you have to really want to believe in god to actually do so. ergo you approach anything suggesting there isn't a god with a bias, as you don't want to believe it. and before you accuse me of not wanting to believe in god etc, or rejecting him, i've done nothing of the sort. the evidence i have seen, by and large, suggests to me that there is no god. that is all there is to it. i could try to persuade myself that there's a god, but then i wouldn't be being honest to myself.

if you say this isn't the case, i suggest you think again, a bit harder;)

...and by the way, this is where rationalising comes in.

i suppose for some it goes beyond rationalising, as rather than give things much thought (like dinosaurs), you just accept the first possible answer (like "they were there when men were there, the bible talks of big creatures etc", even though this flies in the face of pretty much ALL research)

the things that keep me coming back here are - i'm fascinated by what makes people believe in religion - and - nice people:D

dljc
Sep 7th 2008, 10:53 PM
i'm trying to do a course for my work, first andy murray distracts me and now you go and reply to my post. if i don't get this done i hope you realise it's totaly your fault!;)

in reply to the first bit, i think what i actually said in the first post is that knowledge is always expanding - rather the opposite to going "i dunno". i have a very strong urge to know more, but what i want to be utterly sure of (or as sure as possible) is that what i think i know is accurate, and not just what i want to believe.

i personally think you have to really want to believe in god to actually do so. ergo you approach anything suggesting there isn't a god with a bias, as you don't want to believe it. and before you accuse me of not wanting to believe in god etc, or rejecting him, i've done nothing of the sort. the evidence i have seen, by and large, suggests to me that there is no god. that is all there is to it. i could try to persuade myself that there's a god, but then i wouldn't be being honest to myself.

if you say this isn't the case, i suggest you think again, a bit harder;)

...and by the way, this is where rationalising comes in.

i suppose for some it goes beyond rationalising, as rather than give things much thought (like dinosaurs), you just accept the first possible answer (like "they were there when men were there, the bible talks of big creatures etc", even though this flies in the face of pretty much ALL research)

the things that keep me coming back here are - i'm fascinated by what makes people believe in religion - and - nice people:DBenedict one could say the same about you. You have done nothing but rationalize why you don't want to believe there is a God. You don't feel you need a Savior, because after all you're perfect right? Although you don't know everything there is to know about the universe it really doesn't matter. You still want to believe that it just happened on it's own. Sounds like rationalization to me.

You believe what you believe because that's what works for you. It's the path of least resistance, it gives you the opportunity to blame someone else for your own shortcomings instead of taking the responsibility upon yourself for the mistakes you've made and will make. To you it would be great if there is no God, because you wouldn't be held accountable for the things you do.

Do you want me to go on about how you are rationalizing? That's all you've done since you've been coming to this board. Rationalizing why you don't want to believe there is a God. So who's kidding whom here?

dispen4ever
Sep 7th 2008, 10:55 PM
Christians don't rationalize. They walk by faith. They lean not to their own understanding. In all their ways they acknowledge Him. Rationalization is mental, soulish, fleshly, giving rise to all sorts of interpretations, imaginations, rationalizations. We are to read our Bible with spiritual discernment, trusting His Word, NEVER NEVER NEVER rationalizing it. You'll have a clear understanding of that AFTER you become a Christian. See 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. John 14:6, John 3:16-17, Romans 10:8-13.

:-)

dljc
Sep 7th 2008, 11:28 PM
Objectively - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

Rationalize - to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes: "He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing".

1. Rom. 3:10, "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one...'" --No I'm not righteous at all, I have no righteousness in me.

2. Rom. 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." --Yes, I have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

3. Rom. 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." -- Yes, I understand.

4. Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- Yes, I understand the penalty, and accept the free gift of eternal life.

5. Rom. 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." --Thank you for taking my place Lord.

6. Rom. 10:9-10, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." --Yes, I do confess Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead. Thank you again for taking my place.

7. Rom. 10:13, "For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." --Thank you again for all that you have done for me Lord.


You see Benedict, I am willing to admit I am a worm. I have done things I'm not proud of, in fact I'm ashamed of them. Because I know that the path of least resistance, is the broad path that leads to destruction. But I have a Savior who took my place in the wrath of God, a place I truly deserve to have to be, because like you, I have done things I would not share telling them to anyone. But He already knows what those things are, and He's forgiven me for them. There is no rationalizing the fact that I have done the things I've done and deserve the full wrath of God for those actions. I have looked at the world objectively and I agree there are things we will never know about this universe, among other things. But I am still the same person who committed those things that were not pleasing to Him. I was a worm, now I'm His child. Can you see the truth in what I just wrote? Are you willing to admit you're just a worm and need a Savior?

benedict
Sep 8th 2008, 12:14 AM
i don't think anyone is kidding anyone - we just completetly don't understand each other.

it seems asthough you just completely ignore what i've actually written in my posts and just asume some fairly wild things.


Benedict one could say the same about you. You have done nothing but rationalize why you don't want to believe there is a God. You don't feel you need a Savior, because after all you're perfect right? Although you don't know everything there is to know about the universe it really doesn't matter. You still want to believe that it just happened on it's own. Sounds like rationalization to me. I really don't know where you get this "benedict think's he's perfect" stuff from, but i guess you have decided that i you don't believe in something "higher" than yourself, you think you are the highest...? i personally think that everything is equal in it's own right...i don't go about ranking people. that's not to say that i don't respect people - i just try to see them for what they are. people like me.

and it's not that i don't feel like i need a saviour - i just simply don't believe that jesus WAS a saviour. nor anyone else. "saviour" is a concept i do not believe in. i don't believe any one person is "greater" than any other.

You believe what you believe because that's what works for you. It's the path of least resistance, it gives you the opportunity to blame someone else for your own shortcomings instead of taking the responsibility upon yourself for the mistakes you've made and will make. To you it would be great if there is no God, because you wouldn't be held accountable for the things you do. i hold myself accountable for my actions. if a do something bad, i suffer concequences. i hate seeing people suffer. i try to empathise and undestand other people as much as i can. i really don't know what i can do to prove to you that i'm not some psychopath that blames everyone else for my own faults. i think you'd actually find if you met me that i am one of the most irritatingly appologetic people on the planet (my girlfriend gets very annoyed with me). let me say this again - I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN ACTIONS, AND HOLD MYSELF ACCOUNTABLE, AND FULLY ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE CONCEQUENCES. IF I DO SOMETHING BAD/STUPID, IT IS MY FAULT. i don't need to believe in god to get that. the only thing that believing in god does is makes you think that the concequeces for a faux pas are eternal torment as opposed to...say...causing someone else upset and loosing a friend if you betray them...or something. i dunno. you really don't seem to get athiests AT ALL.

Do you want me to go on about how you are rationalizing? That's all you've done since you've been coming to this board. Rationalizing why you don't want to believe there is a God. So who's kidding whom here? let me refer you to the post you actually quoted, and see if you read it properly this time -
...and before you accuse me of not wanting to believe in god etc, or rejecting him, i've done nothing of the sort. the evidence i have seen, by and large, suggests to me that there is no god. that is all there is to it. i could try to persuade myself that there's a god, but then i wouldn't be being honest to myself.
to clarify the evidence i was speaking of -

a) i have no idea where dinosaurs fit into the bible, and the explenation that they are refered to briefly, and that they existed at the same time as humans, just doesn't fit at all - pretty much ALL research shows they are hundreds of millions of years old. please, please tell me how you persuade yourself that this isn't the case. oh...is it the scientists conspiring against you again?:rolleyes: would they really go to such lengths as to lie, again and again, invent extremely complicated evidence, write thousands of books etc, just to try to prove you wrong? what is motivating this?

i'll leave you to rationalise to your heart's content over that one.

b) one observation i have made - and i know and accept that this is only a possibility, and that i could be wrong - everything in the universe seems to expand somehow. it has been shown by scientists, albeit allegedly satan worshiping, god hating athiest ones, that the whole universe is expanding. it must have had a starting point, oui? look at all the other things in nature that expand - animals; plants; continents (they started off as one and moved outwards); populations (cities, forrests); knowledge; technology; relationships/love...just have a look around. this all comes from a starting point, i think the big bang makes more sense than a dude, a chick, a tree, and a snake.

i accept that i am pretty much 99.999999% definitely going to be wrong on at least part of, probably most of that, as there are so many possible options of how it all started.

benedict
Sep 8th 2008, 12:26 AM
You see Benedict, I am willing to admit I am a worm. I have done things I'm not proud of, in fact I'm ashamed of them. Because I know that the path of least resistance, is the broad path that leads to destruction. But I have a Savior who took my place in the wrath of God, a place I truly deserve to have to be, because like you, I have done things I would not share telling them to anyone. But He already knows what those things are, and He's forgiven me for them. There is no rationalizing the fact that I have done the things I've done and deserve the full wrath of God for those actions. I have looked at the world objectively and I agree there are things we will never know about this universe, among other things. But I am still the same person who committed those things that were not pleasing to Him. I was a worm, now I'm His child. Can you see the truth in what I just wrote? Are you willing to admit you're just a worm and need a Savior?well, i don't think i'm a worm, i think i'm a person. i think i have lots of flaws, like any other person.

it's my responsibily as a person to try to iron these out, so that I can contribute as much as i can to society. FYI, my main interest is politics, and my one hatered on this planet is the love of money. i try my best not to be greedy. when i act like a moron, i am pretty harsh on myself.

but this doesn't mean i think i'm a worm. i know that my good deeds are pathetic little dirty rags to you or whatever, because, you know, i think natalie portman is WELL fit and god finds that infinitely offensive - but that's where we differ. i don't think there is some person super-verging on OCD sensitive guy in the sky getting all offended over utterly in-concequential thoughts.

i think that people have a choice - they can act for themselves or they can act for others. i try my best to act for others, to care (my job, actually, i work in a care home for people with learning dificulties), to empathise, and to understand why people act the way they do. of course i act for myself regularly, but all i can do is try to stop myself from doing so when it has an adverse reaction on other people.

maybe i just don't have such a guilty concience as you;):D (joke)

benedict
Sep 8th 2008, 12:30 AM
Christians don't rationalize. They walk by faith. They lean not to their own understanding. In all their ways they acknowledge Him. Rationalization is mental, soulish, fleshly, giving rise to all sorts of interpretations, imaginations, rationalizations. We are to read our Bible with spiritual discernment, trusting His Word, NEVER NEVER NEVER rationalizing it. You'll have a clear understanding of that AFTER you become a Christian. See 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. John 14:6, John 3:16-17, Romans 10:8-13.

:-)
ok...but you reconcile, right?

tango
Sep 8th 2008, 03:19 AM
i'm trying to do a course for my work, first andy murray distracts me and now you go and reply to my post. if i don't get this done i hope you realise it's totaly your fault!;)


Interesting, hope you got your work done as well as answering my post!



in reply to the first bit, i think what i actually said in the first post is that knowledge is always expanding - rather the opposite to going "i dunno". i have a very strong urge to know more, but what i want to be utterly sure of (or as sure as possible) is that what i think i know is accurate, and not just what i want to believe.


Knowledge is always expanding. And you know what - the more we know the more the historic aspects of the Bible ring true, and the more we find we simply can't explain. Don't you find it fascinating that not a single scientist has been able to provide conclusive proof that the Bible is not an accurate document? Let's be frank here, any scientist that ever did manage to conclusively prove the Bible to be false wouldn't be short on funding for the rest of their career.



i personally think you have to really want to believe in god to actually do so. ergo you approach anything suggesting there isn't a god with a bias, as you don't want to believe it. and before you accuse me of not wanting to believe in god etc, or rejecting him, i've done nothing of the sort. the evidence i have seen, by and large, suggests to me that there is no god. that is all there is to it. i could try to persuade myself that there's a god, but then i wouldn't be being honest to myself.

if you say this isn't the case, i suggest you think again, a bit harder;)


I can categorically say this isn't the case. 18 months ago I desperately wanted to believe that God did not exist. I had experienced enough of the supernatural to know that something was out there, but when God was calling to me I desperately wanted to deny it, to deny that God was real. The thing was, for me to accept that God was real meant admitting to myself that I'd been following a lie for something over 15 years of my life. But over time I had to confront that fact, and had to change my worldview entirely to make a space for God.



...and by the way, this is where rationalising comes in.


Or hiding from the truth, depending on your worldview :)



i suppose for some it goes beyond rationalising, as rather than give things much thought (like dinosaurs), you just accept the first possible answer (like "they were there when men were there, the bible talks of big creatures etc", even though this flies in the face of pretty much ALL research)

the things that keep me coming back here are - i'm fascinated by what makes people believe in religion - and - nice people:D

I don't believe in religion, I believe in God because I have experienced God directly. I've seen more things to convince me that God is real than I have seen to convince me that you are real, to give just one example ;)

dljc
Sep 8th 2008, 04:02 AM
well, i don't think i'm a worm, i think i'm a person. i think i have lots of flaws, like any other person.

it's my responsibily as a person to try to iron these out, so that I can contribute as much as i can to society. FYI, my main interest is politics, and my one hatered on this planet is the love of money. i try my best not to be greedy. when i act like a moron, i am pretty harsh on myself.

but this doesn't mean i think i'm a worm. i know that my good deeds are pathetic little dirty rags to you or whatever, because, you know, i think natalie portman is WELL fit and god finds that infinitely offensive - but that's where we differ. i don't think there is some person super-verging on OCD sensitive guy in the sky getting all offended over utterly in-concequential thoughts.

i think that people have a choice - they can act for themselves or they can act for others. i try my best to act for others, to care (my job, actually, i work in a care home for people with learning dificulties), to empathise, and to understand why people act the way they do. of course i act for myself regularly, but all i can do is try to stop myself from doing so when it has an adverse reaction on other people.

maybe i just don't have such a guilty concience as you;):D (joke)Just to point something out here. A self righteous person like yourself never does. When you're ready to admit you have no righteousness you can go to the next step.

You see Benedict, everything else you said to me is self righteousness. You are well adjusted, you are harsh on yourself when you feel you have done wrong, but what is "wrong" in your eyes? As long as you don't physically commit the act, then no harm has been done. But you see, that's where you're wrong. You know inside that you crossed the line. But since you didn't commit the physical act this time, no harm has been done, "in your mind". But what about the next time and the next, until it actually does become a physical act. You will already have a seared conscience about the matter and it won't be wrong to commit the physical act (in you mind it won't).

Basically what you have told me is that you are a nice guy; SELF righteousness is written all over what you wrote. :(

TrustGzus
Sep 8th 2008, 06:36 PM
well, i personally think i've got it all sewn up in my world view;)

here it is...

drumroll...


i have absolutely no idea how amost everything in the universe works, why we are here, and all that, and i never will. nor will anyone else...unless this bothers them so much that they need to jump to a conclusion in order to make sense of it all.Hey Benedict, this is a long response. However, I take your posts seriously, so please take the time to take mine seriously.

It seems like your statements are contradictory to me. In one sentence you claim to have it "all sewn up", then you spend a paragraph explaining how you've basically got nothing sewn up -- and that no one ever will.

In many ways, Benedict, you aren't all that different than us. Christians don't know how everything in the universe works - only God does.

I have no problem with you claiming you don't know why we're here. That's honest. However, your claim that no one knows is unreasonable. In order to know that no one knows, you'd have to have an exhaustive exploration of all the options out there that all humans can possibly explore and you'd have to have fair, objective knowledge of those options and find that none of the options answer the question why are we here? If you haven't done that full exploration, then you can't honestly say no one can know why we're here.

Saying you don't know is ordinary agnosticism. That's reasonable. Saying that no one can know is ornery agnosticism. That's not reasonable. As a Christian, I could have it wrong, but that doesn't necessitate that no one has it right. Your position is an arrogant one and I hope you can see it's unreasonableness. You can freely disagree with us and think we are wrong. Maybe we are. But that doesn't mean no one knows just because you don't know and I don't know (assuming my view is incorrect as to why we are here).
but IMO if you look at things objectively, you'll see that we'll never know everything about the universe and how it works, or why were here - but like most other things in the universe, our knowledge is expanding all the time.
Perhaps religion is the opiate of the masses as you view. Perhaps one of those religions is correct. If knowledge is expanding as you claim, how do you know that no one has found the answer? Same problem as I was talking above. You don't know, therefore no one knows. Well, just because you don't know the answer in your vast years on the earth, doesn't mean that no one through the corridors of time hasn't known. And if just one person knows truth, and they in turn teach it to another and then to another, then others know.

Again, your position of saying you don't know is fine. It's honest and humble. Your position that others cannot know is unreasonable and arrogant.

So many other things you say are good. You hate the love of money. So did the apostle Paul (1 Timothy 6:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1ti%206:10&version=72)). So did Jesus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%206:24;&version=72;) based on his famous Sermon on the Mount.

One mistake you're making is lumping all Christians into a young earth creation category. I'm not in that category, nor are a boatload of Christian scholars. I have no problem with the Big Bang. In fact, I think the Big Bang supports the idea that God exists (theism) and mitigates against atheism.

Dinosaurs? Not a problem. I have no problem with them being millions or billions of years ago. Place them where you please. That works perfectly fine with an an all-powerful creator. If dinosaurs walked the earth long ago, that doesn't conflict with God becoming man and walking this earth and dying an excruciating death and rising from the dead.


Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.
Jesus rose from the dead.

Those two are not contradictions in any sense.

Now you claim there isn't evidence for God. I find it just the opposite. If you and were on a walk and we found a glass ball. We'd both assume that there must be a glass ball maker. Balls don't just form from nothing and by nothing. If we continued and found an 8' glass ball, while that would be interesting, we'd still assume a ball maker. If we had a conversation and proposed a glass ball the size of the earth, we'd assume if an 8' glass ball needed a maker, so would a ball the size of the earth. However, this is where your view gets interesting. If we propose a ball as big as the universe, you say there is no evidence for a god, the universe is just there.

Here's where I think your view just is unbelievable. A glass ball is a very simple thing in comparison to the operations going on in the universe. Yet neither you nor I would believe a six inch glass ball on a path we were walking came from nothing and by nothing. We would think that is conclusive evidence of a glass ball maker.

Yet you look at the much more complicated universe and claim we don't have evidence of a god, i.e. a universe maker.

Do you understand why I see your view is unconvincing?

I think you need to explore Christian works by scientists and philosophers that don't hold to young earth creationism and not make hasty generalizations.

Grace & Peace to you,

Joe

benedict
Sep 10th 2008, 03:26 PM
Hey Benedict, this is a long response. However, I take your posts seriously, so please take the time to take mine seriously.

It seems like your statements are contradictory to me. In one sentence you claim to have it "all sewn up", then you spend a paragraph explaining how you've basically got nothing sewn up -- and that no one ever will. i was being ironic:rolleyes:


In many ways, Benedict, you aren't all that different than us. Christians don't know how everything in the universe works - only God does.i'd agree with that, except rather than the last part i'd say "that's not to say it is completely inexplicable and senseless". i'd almost say that only the universe knows how the universe works...which is technically what you're saying...:hmm:


I have no problem with you claiming you don't know why we're here. That's honest. However, your claim that no one knows is unreasonable. In order to know that no one knows, you'd have to have an exhaustive exploration of all the options out there that all humans can possibly explore and you'd have to have fair, objective knowledge of those options and find that none of the options answer the question why are we here? If you haven't done that full exploration, then you can't honestly say no one can know why we're here.i don't think i said (or if i did didn't exactly mean) that noone knows. what i meant was the following -

it's very improbable that anyone knows how it all works, and even if someone does know, it's impossible for them to know they are right.

i think that's fair comment. as i'm sure you'll know, even christians disagree with each other.


Saying you don't know is ordinary agnosticism. That's reasonable. Saying that no one can know is ornery agnosticism. That's not reasonable. As a Christian, I could have it wrong, but that doesn't necessitate that no one has it right. Your position is an arrogant one and I hope you can see it's unreasonableness. You can freely disagree with us and think we are wrong. Maybe we are. But that doesn't mean no one knows just because you don't know and I don't know (assuming my view is incorrect as to why we are here).Perhaps religion is the opiate of the masses as you view. Perhaps one of those religions is correct. If knowledge is expanding as you claim, how do you know that no one has found the answer? Same problem as I was talking above. You don't know, therefore no one knows. Well, just because you don't know the answer in your vast years on the earth, doesn't mean that no one through the corridors of time hasn't known. And if just one person knows truth, and they in turn teach it to another and then to another, then others know.

Again, your position of saying you don't know is fine. It's honest and humble. Your position that others cannot know is unreasonable and arrogant. i think i covered this above




So many other things you say are good. You hate the love of money. So did the apostle Paul (1 Timothy 6:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1ti%206:10&version=72)). So did Jesus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%206:24;&version=72;) based on his famous Sermon on the Mount.well, the republican party could do well to take note of that;)


One mistake you're making is lumping all Christians into a young earth creation category. I'm not in that category, nor are a boatload of Christian scholars. I have no problem with the Big Bang. In fact, I think the Big Bang supports the idea that God exists (theism) and mitigates against atheism.i'm intrigued...do expand, if you will?


Dinosaurs? Not a problem. I have no problem with them being millions or billions of years ago. Place them where you please. That works perfectly fine with an an all-powerful creator. If dinosaurs walked the earth long ago, that doesn't conflict with God becoming man and walking this earth and dying an excruciating death and rising from the dead.


Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.
Jesus rose from the dead.

Those two are not contradictions in any sense.i know they are not a problem from your perspective. but if i were to take the bible literally, as millions do, i think i could safely say there's a problem there.


Now you claim there isn't evidence for God. I find it just the opposite. If you and were on a walk and we found a glass ball. We'd both assume that there must be a glass ball maker. Balls don't just form from nothing and by nothing. If we continued and found an 8' glass ball, while that would be interesting, we'd still assume a ball maker. If we had a conversation and proposed a glass ball the size of the earth, we'd assume if an 8' glass ball needed a maker, so would a ball the size of the earth. However, this is where your view gets interesting. If we propose a ball as big as the universe, you say there is no evidence for a god, the universe is just there.


Here's where I think your view just is unbelievable. A glass ball is a very simple thing in comparison to the operations going on in the universe. Yet neither you nor I would believe a six inch glass ball on a path we were walking came from nothing and by nothing. We would think that is conclusive evidence of a glass ball maker.

Yet you look at the much more complicated universe and claim we don't have evidence of a god, i.e. a universe maker.i'd say that you are seeking wholeness (or gestalt to be posh) in your existence and jumping to a conclusion without even beginning to look at an almost infinite other number of options that are out of our comprehension - that is, of course, unless you are a particle physicist.


Do you understand why I see your view is unconvincing?to recap -
it's very improbable that anyone knows how it all works, and even if someone does know, it's impossible for them to know they are right.

i'd say that still seems pretty fair to me.


I think you need to explore Christian works by scientists and philosophers that don't hold to young earth creationism and not make hasty generalizations.funny how both of us are accusing each other of hasty generalisations...


Grace & Peace to you,

Joeright back atcha:D

tango
Sep 11th 2008, 03:27 AM
Benedict, trying to understand the Bible using nothing more than pure science is in many ways like trying to appreciate Beethoven's Fifth Symphony using a spectrum analyzer. You might spot something that doesn't immediately make sense, but just like you need to actually listen to Beethoven's 5th to appreciate it, so you largely need to experience God's love for yourself for things to start to make more sense.

You've been here over two years, periodically throwing in a question or two for us. If we were to answer every single one of your questions, would you become a Christian?

TrustGzus
Sep 11th 2008, 10:13 PM
i was being ironic:rolleyes:
i'd agree with that, except rather than the last part i'd say "that's not to say it is completely inexplicable and senseless". i'd almost say that only the universe knows how the universe works...which is technically what you're saying...:hmm:Hhmmm . . . Not unless I'm misunderstanding you. God is a personal being. The universe is an impersonal object and doesn't "understand" anything.

i don't think i said (or if i did didn't exactly mean) that noone knows. what i meant was the following -

it's very improbable that anyone knows how it all works, and even if someone does know, it's impossible for them to know they are right.I think we can move on. You don't claim to know how "it all works". No one at this board claims to know how "it all works". Christians believe that only God knows how it all works. This is reasonable. If God exists, and if Christian theology is correct that he is all-knowing, then of course he would know how it all works. Whether God exists or not is the only question left there.

well, the republican party could do well to take note of that;)This was in regard to your comment on love of money. Let's not get sidetracked into politics too much. However, do you honestly think the Democrats are free of the love of money? Some Democrats love money; some don't. Some Republicans love money; some don't. You can't take either party and declare an entire party guilty in regard to this. By the way I live in Illinois - where Obama was a senator for many years. He changed nothing here with democratic governor too. Illinois is a crummy state with outrageous taxes. He'll do the same as President. Why should I think otherwise since I live where he did his work?
i'm intrigued...do expand, if you will?The evidence for the Big Bang is substantial. That's why most Christians scholars I listen to believe in it. But Big Bang cosmology fits more with a Christian worldview than an atheistic one.

If you and I here a little bang in another room and you asked me what caused it and I said "nothing - it just happened" how believable is that? If little bangs have causes, so must a Big Bang.

Atheism requires me to believe that something came from nothing by nothing (an effect without a cause). Theism requires me to believe that something came from nothing by an all-powerful being (an effect with a cause). Atheism requires more faith than theism. I don't have that kind of faith.
i know they are not a problem from your perspective. but if i were to take the bible literally, as millions do, i think i could safely say there's a problem there.Why? What do you mean by take it literally? When the Bible says the mountains and hills break forth into song and all the trees of the field clap their hands (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2055:12;&version=72;), do you take that wooden literally, i.e. that it's speaking of a physical event in which trees actually clap and mountains sing?

The Bible doesn't state the universe is x years old. It doesn't say how God created, i.e. with or without a bang, it just states that he created.

I think the reason a lot of Christians view the things the way they do is they are taught one thing by those who are their leaders and they don't really explore all the options. They take the Bible the way you are taking it (perhaps the only view you've heard?) and they don't hear other views - even within the church. In the process, people get hung up on an issue or issues that seem unreasonable. You look at some of this and see what you see as unreasonable yet there are other options. In the meantime, there are other Christians that have a different perspective and incorporate more data into their worldview.
i'd say that you are seeking wholeness (or gestalt to be posh) in your existence and jumping to a conclusion without even beginning to look at an almost infinite other number of options that are out of our comprehension - that is, of course, unless you are a particle physicist.You're seeking wholeness or gestalt or posh or whatever too. You're trying to put the puzzle together too. And yes the options are infinite, but not in regard to this basic fact - either the universe was caused by a universe maker or it was not caused by a universe maker.

I look at a glass ball and assume there must be a glass ball maker. You're a smart man. I assume that you would conclude a glass ball requires a glass ball maker. A glass ball is a simple object. The universe is incredibly complex. Yet an atheist believes in a glass ball maker but not a universe maker. I figure if something as simple as a glass ball requires a glass ball maker, then a machine as complex as the universe requires a universe maker. That doesn't seem like a far leap in my mind. As I stated earlier I don't have the faith to believe that while a glass ball requires a glass ball maker, that a universe doesn't require a universe maker.

There aren't millions of options in regard to this - there are only two: a universe maker or no universe maker. Now if there is a universe maker, then we have more options to explore about that maker.

Your turn.

Grace & peace to you, Benedict.

Joe

benedict
Sep 12th 2008, 05:19 PM
1. Rom. 3:10, "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one...'" --No I'm not righteous at all, I have no righteousness in me.

2. Rom. 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." --Yes, I have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

3. Rom. 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." -- Yes, I understand.

4. Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- Yes, I understand the penalty, and accept the free gift of eternal life.

5. Rom. 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." --Thank you for taking my place Lord.

6. Rom. 10:9-10, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." --Yes, I do confess Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead. Thank you again for taking my place.

7. Rom. 10:13, "For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." --Thank you again for all that you have done for me Lord.


now you just sound a bit mad.

benedict
Sep 12th 2008, 07:29 PM
You've been here over two years, periodically throwing in a question or two for us. If we were to answer every single one of your questions, would you become a Christian?
it's a difficult question to answer. i would like to think so, but so far, and no offence meant here by the way, i don't think many of my questions have been answered in a way that makes sense to me. my scepticism has only increased.

that's not to say the doors closed;)

Gillian
Sep 12th 2008, 08:06 PM
..........dinosaurs?

they mentioned in Bible few times.

Gillian

benedict
Sep 13th 2008, 07:51 PM
they mentioned in Bible few times.

Gillianmmmmmkay......?

tango
Sep 14th 2008, 12:45 AM
it's a difficult question to answer. i would like to think so, but so far, and no offence meant here by the way, i don't think many of my questions have been answered in a way that makes sense to me. my scepticism has only increased.

that's not to say the doors closed;)

The thing is Benedict, some things you have to experience rather than explain. Just like you'd never do justice to Beethoven's Fifth if you attempted to describe it using words, so you can't do justice to a relationship with God by attempting to define it.

The chance to have that relationship with God is open to you, but you have to be willing to put aside your desire to explain everything in terms you can readily understand.

I'm like you, I sometimes struggle with the concept of having to simply accept that some things can't be readily explained. But that's what you have to do, accept that some things will never make perfect sense.

Let me give you an example. When I was four years old I asked my parents what caused thunder. My parents told me it was a big noise in the sky, which worked fine for me - I wouldn't have understood if they had told about a buildup of ionisation causing a flash of lightning, which in turn caused a clap of thunder. The fact I now know a lot more about what causes storms, how they develop, what causes lightning and thunder, and hail, and rain, and so on, actually doesn't enrich my life very much. It's great in theory to know all these things but it doesn't make me wiser. In the same way there are some aspects of God's kingdom that we'll probably never understand this side of the grave.

benedict
Sep 16th 2008, 05:16 PM
Hhmmm . . . Not unless I'm misunderstanding you. God is a personal being. The universe is an impersonal object and doesn't "understand" anything.basically, what i was saying is there...MIGHT be some higher conciousness/god or whatever. quite a revelation, i think you'll agree;)
I think we can move on. You don't claim to know how "it all works". No one at this board claims to know how "it all works". Christians believe that only God knows how it all works. This is reasonable. If God exists, and if Christian theology is correct that he is all-knowing, then of course he would know how it all works. Whether God exists or not is the only question left there.i wouldn't say it's the only question at all...
This was in regard to your comment on love of money. Let's not get sidetracked into politics too much. However, do you honestly think the Democrats are free of the love of money? Some Democrats love money; some don't. Some Republicans love money; some don't. You can't take either party and declare an entire party guilty in regard to this. By the way I live in Illinois - where Obama was a senator for many years. He changed nothing here with democratic governor too. Illinois is a crummy state with outrageous taxes. He'll do the same as President. Why should I think otherwise since I live where he did his work?if you want, we can carry out a political debate via private messages...:D (not allowed to post political stuff on here as i'm a non-christian...:cry:)
The evidence for the Big Bang is substantial. That's why most Christians scholars I listen to believe in it. But Big Bang cosmology fits more with a Christian worldview than an atheistic one.call me cynical, but i'd say you probably look at the big bang theory with a starting point of "ok, this seems to make sense. how can i fit it into my christian faith". so naturally, you're going to make sense of it in a way that fits in more with a christian worldview than an antheistic one. i know that you're thinking "well something had to make the big bang" and so on, and so am i. the difference is i'm being honest enough to see that i'm not going to be able to figure that out:D

The evidence for the Big Bang is substantial. That's why most Christians scholars I listen to believe in it. But Big Bang cosmology fits more with a Christian worldview than an atheistic one.

If you and I here a little bang in another room and you asked me what caused it and I said "nothing - it just happened" how believable is that? If little bangs have causes, so must a Big Bang.

Atheism requires me to believe that something came from nothing by nothing (an effect without a cause). Theism requires me to believe that something came from nothing by an all-powerful being (an effect with a cause). Atheism requires more faith than theism. I don't have that kind of faith.

r.e. to the bit in bold - this is not the case.

ok, how about this.

you and i hear a little bang in another room and i ask you what caused it and you say "god". then i say "can you really be so sure? even if we combined both our brains and multiplied their power a hundred times, we would still only know a fraction of a percent of what was in that room". then you'd say "um...i read a book".

or...

If you and I here a little bang in another room and you asked me what caused it and I said "i don't know, lets find out!" and then we become particle physicists and skip off into the distance, driven by our new found thirst for knowledge;)

to clarify - only an idiot would way that everything just appeared out of nothing without a cause. i'm just owning up that i don't know what the cause was. i'm comfortable with that!


Why? What do you mean by take it literally? When the Bible says the mountains and hills break forth into song and all the trees of the field clap their hands (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2055:12;&version=72;), do you take that wooden literally, i.e. that it's speaking of a physical event in which trees actually clap and mountains sing? The Bible doesn't state the universe is x years old. It doesn't say how God created, i.e. with or without a bang, it just states that he created.
you know what i mean - there's plenty of people on here that think the planet is about 10,000 years old and that the adam and eve thing was literally the start of existence. i have issues with their hypothesis :rolleyes:

I think the reason a lot of Christians view the things the way they do is they are taught one thing by those who are their leaders and they don't really explore all the options. They take the Bible the way you are taking it (perhaps the only view you've heard?) and they don't hear other views - even within the church. In the process, people get hung up on an issue or issues that seem unreasonable. You look at some of this and see what you see as unreasonable yet there are other options. In the meantime, there are other Christians that have a different perspective and incorporate more data into their worldview.You're seeking wholeness or gestalt or posh or whatever too. You're trying to put the puzzle together too. And yes the options are infinite, but not in regard to this basic fact - either the universe was caused by a universe maker or it was not caused by a universe maker.


I look at a glass ball and assume there must be a glass ball maker. You're a smart man. I assume that you would conclude a glass ball requires a glass ball maker. A glass ball is a simple object. The universe is incredibly complex. Yet an atheist believes in a glass ball maker but not a universe maker. I figure if something as simple as a glass ball requires a glass ball maker, then a machine as complex as the universe requires a universe maker. That doesn't seem like a far leap in my mind. As I stated earlier I don't have the faith to believe that while a glass ball requires a glass ball maker, that a universe doesn't require a universe maker.
i don't have such faith either. i think i've kinda already explained my stance on this in this post, but r.e. the last bit about there being two options - you seem to have a very inflexible idea of what a maker might be. there ARE an infinite amount of options, slowly being narrowed down. i can confidently say that, for example, john mccain didn't create the universe...:rolleyes:

There aren't millions of options in regard to this - there are only two: a universe maker or no universe maker. Now if there is a universe maker, then we have more options to explore about that maker.
...enlighten me...

Your turn.

Grace & peace to you, Benedict.

Joeyou too, joe!:spin:

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2008, 09:41 PM
Hey Benedict,

I think Tango's post to you about how you would respond if all your questions were answered really needs to be considered heavily. You said your questions haven't been answered satisfactorily. And that's probably true often. You probably have received many unsatisfactory answers. I hate lame answers. I am quite skeptical by nature. That's part of why this area of Bibleforums.org is my area. I've been a Christian 22 years now and I hate lame answers from Christians (or anyone, but I find it particularly ugly from Christians).

However, I find your responses unsatisfactory to my points. I could be wrong. I've been wrong many times in life, but let me summarize what I see.

Your jumping from your current position (I don't know who/what caused the universe) to a Non Sequitur conclusion (I cannot figure out what caused the Big Bang). Just because you current position is you don't know the cause, it doesn't follow that that you will never figure it out or that others cannot or have not.

If I take your view of the universe and bring it to the hypothetical glass ball that you and I find on the path, I've concluded there is a glass ball maker and you're looking at it saying that there are a million ways a glass ball could have showed up and you can't conclude there is a glass ball maker and you never will know if there is a glass ball maker.

Is that really where your at? When you find a McDonald's cup on the ground, do you really wonder if there are a million ways the McDonald's cup could have come to exist and that you'll never know? I conclude that there is a McDonald's cup designer. Same with a glass ball.

The more complex things get, the more reasonable it is to assume a maker. If we find a Play Station game, that's much more complex than a McDonald's cup or a glass ball. If we find a motorized scooter, that requires an intelligent designer. We find a Honda automobile . . . intelligent designer required.

Then we jump to the human body (way more complex than a car - I've never had a car that heals cuts in its hoses or repairs rusted spots) or the universes . . . all of a sudden there are a million options according to you. Who's really being unreasonable?

You don't believe random chance designed basketballs or Play Station games, scooters or cars (I assume you don't anyway). Why do you think at some point infinitely more complex systems such as a human body or universe don't need intelligence behind them when infinitely simpler things do need intelligence behind them?

If time and randomness is all that's needed, and there are things like humans and dogs and all the complex life on earth, why don't we find paper cups and glass balls and infinitely simpler things scattered across the universe as we explore space? You would think with all the billions of years that we'd find simpler objects like paper cups that have evolved and are floating all over the galaxies. But we don't find them.

I'm not asking you to jump from the Big Bang needs a cause (which you agreed with in your last post) all the way to Christianity is true. There are too many steps between those two to make that leap. Just because the Big Bang needs a cause doesn't imply Christianity is true. But, it leaves that door open. I'm not debating Christianity with you. I'm simply saying theism makes sense much more than atheism.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I think you see the problem and are avoiding to face it head on. You're trying to make an illogical leap to cover your ground by repeating over and over in this thread that because you don't know now that you will never know and no one else will either. Repeating the claim over and over doesn't make it true. That's circular reasoinng or begging the question. I'm read many intro to logic works and your concluding comment that you won't be able to figure that out simply because you haven't currently figured it out would never get a passing grade in a logic class. You've adopted a position of ornery agnosticism. But ornery agnosticism is self-defeating. To claim to know that you cannot know is a very unconvincing position.

Denying the existence of God completely implies:

Intelligence came from non-intelligence.
Beauty came from non-beauty.
Morality came from non-morality.
Design came from non-design.
McDonald's cup came from an intelligent cup designer.
Human body that self-repairs came from chance.

So let's get basic at the end here. You and I are walking and find something incredibly simple compared to you or me or the universe: a glass ball or a McDonald's cup. Are there a million ways those two things could have come into existence? Or is there a glass ball designer or McDonald's cup designer?

Grace & peace to you, Benedict.

Joe

benedict
Sep 20th 2008, 08:26 PM
Hey Benedict,

I think Tango's post to you about how you would respond if all your questions were answered really needs to be considered heavily. You said your questions haven't been answered satisfactorily. And that's probably true often. You probably have received many unsatisfactory answers. I hate lame answers. I am quite skeptical by nature. That's part of why this area of Bibleforums.org is my area. I've been a Christian 22 years now and I hate lame answers from Christians (or anyone, but I find it particularly ugly from Christians).

However, I find your responses unsatisfactory to my points. I could be wrong. I've been wrong many times in life, but let me summarize what I see.

Your jumping from your current position (I don't know who/what caused the universe) to a Non Sequitur conclusion (I cannot figure out what caused the Big Bang). Just because you current position is you don't know the cause, it doesn't follow that that you will never figure it out or that others cannot or have not.

i don't think i said that noone can ever know (if i did i take it back). i think it's utterly unreasonable, however, to suggest that anyone can know that what they believe is correct. i think that's all i was saying. if you decide "there's a god" then you are automatically ruling out options that you don't even know exist (and don't ask what they are, because i don't know;)). this might be utterly unsatisfactory to you, but i have no issues with this. and i think it's pretty fair. i understand your logic, there must be a maker...and i know what i'm about to say is a cliche areguement...but who made the maker? "he has existed forever, he is all powerful" or whatever...ok...why can't the universe have existed for ever? it seems a bit illogical to me to assume that because the universe needs a maker, it's maker doesn't. (that's where a bit of rationalising comes in handy, eh?;))


If I take your view of the universe and bring it to the hypothetical glass ball that you and I find on the path, I've concluded there is a glass ball maker and you're looking at it saying that there are a million ways a glass ball could have showed up and you can't conclude there is a glass ball maker and you never will know if there is a glass ball maker.

Is that really where your at? When you find a McDonald's cup on the ground, do you really wonder if there are a million ways the McDonald's cup could have come to exist and that you'll never know? I conclude that there is a McDonald's cup designer. Same with a glass ball.

The more complex things get, the more reasonable it is to assume a maker. If we find a Play Station game, that's much more complex than a McDonald's cup or a glass ball. If we find a motorized scooter, that requires an intelligent designer. We find a Honda automobile . . . intelligent designer required.

Then we jump to the human body (way more complex than a car - I've never had a car that heals cuts in its hoses or repairs rusted spots) or the universes . . . all of a sudden there are a million options according to you. Who's really being unreasonable? erm...not me, i don think...? here's a website that i think we can both find very interesting - www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/)
have a look. i think it kinda illustrates that there are a lot of options.


You don't believe random chance designed basketballs or Play Station games, scooters or cars (I assume you don't anyway). Why do you think at some point infinitely more complex systems such as a human body or universe don't need intelligence behind them when infinitely simpler things do need intelligence behind them?well, human bodies, trees, plants, bacteria and so on all "make" themselves. that's pretty intelligent. i think we're having a misunderstanding. i don't think i've said anywhere that i don't believe a maker can be behind it. i'm just saying it's not the only option - unless you can actually get your head around the idea of infinity (i know i can't...), it's hard to say that the universe can't have existed for an infinite amount of time. that link will show you that universes can litterally appear out of nothing within our universe (not that i understand that:confused).


we're getting into particle physics again, i'm just not qualified to even try to have a conversation about it...i'll have another look on the bbc site and try to explain myself better...

i think the best point i can make is in form of a question -

how come a maker can have existed for an infinite amount of time when a universe can't? do you have sufficient understanding of the universe to say it can't have existed for an infinite amount of time? (for this see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm)

who's being unreasonable now? ;)


If time and randomness is all that's needed, and there are things like humans and dogs and all the complex life on earth, why don't we find paper cups and glass balls and infinitely simpler things scattered across the universe as we explore space? You would think with all the billions of years that we'd find simpler objects like paper cups that have evolved and are floating all over the galaxies. But we don't find them.

I'm not asking you to jump from the Big Bang needs a cause (which you agreed with in your last post) all the way to Christianity is true. There are too many steps between those two to make that leap. Just because the Big Bang needs a cause doesn't imply Christianity is true. But, it leaves that door open. I'm not debating Christianity with you. I'm simply saying theism makes sense much more than atheism.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I think you see the problem and are avoiding to face it head on. You're trying to make an illogical leap to cover your ground by repeating over and over in this thread that because you don't know now that you will never know and no one else will either. Repeating the claim over and over doesn't make it true. That's circular reasoinng or begging the question. I'm read many intro to logic works and your concluding comment that you won't be able to figure that out simply because you haven't currently figured it out would never get a passing grade in a logic class. You've adopted a position of ornery agnosticism. But ornery agnosticism is self-defeating. To claim to know that you cannot know is a very unconvincing position.

Denying the existence of God completely implies:

Intelligence came from non-intelligence.
Beauty came from non-beauty.
Morality came from non-morality.
Design came from non-design.
McDonald's cup came from an intelligent cup designer.
Human body that self-repairs came from chance.

So let's get basic at the end here. You and I are walking and find something incredibly simple compared to you or me or the universe: a glass ball or a McDonald's cup. Are there a million ways those two things could have come into existence? Or is there a glass ball designer or McDonald's cup designer?

Grace & peace to you, Benedict.

Joe

will answer this later, being harrassed by dad+mum+sister+phone :mad:

benedict
Sep 21st 2008, 04:17 PM
If time and randomness is all that's needed, and there are things like humans and dogs and all the complex life on earth, why don't we find paper cups and glass balls and infinitely simpler things scattered across the universe as we explore space? You would think with all the billions of years that we'd find simpler objects like paper cups that have evolved and are floating all over the galaxies. But we don't find them.

well, paper cups can't sustain themselves, they require something totally different (a machine, a person) to make them. hence why they don't evolve. things need some sort of life within them to evolve. i'm sure you knew that.

we do have trees though:D


I'm not asking you to jump from the Big Bang needs a cause (which you agreed with in your last post) all the way to Christianity is true. There are too many steps between those two to make that leap. Just because the Big Bang needs a cause doesn't imply Christianity is true. But, it leaves that door open. I'm not debating Christianity with you. I'm simply saying theism makes sense much more than atheism. ok, something occurred to me. the universe is infinite in terms of space...

can you tell me, with any degree of certainty, that a universe capable of infinity in terms of space cannot be in terms of time?

i'm not asking if you can understand that concept - i can't - but it seems "unreasonable" to say that it's not possible.




And maybe I'm wrong, but I think you see the problem and are avoiding to face it head on. You're trying to make an illogical leap to cover your ground by repeating over and over in this thread that because you don't know now that you will never know and no one else will either. Repeating the claim over and over doesn't make it true. That's circular reasoinng or begging the question. I'm read many intro to logic works and your concluding comment that you won't be able to figure that out simply because you haven't currently figured it out would never get a passing grade in a logic class. You've adopted a position of ornery agnosticism. But ornery agnosticism is self-defeating. To claim to know that you cannot know is a very unconvincing position.what's unconvincing about it? it's unsatisfying to some, i can see that, but i'd say it makes sense. i believe in what has been proven and keep my mind open to anything else. i think that's reasonable.


Denying the existence of God completely implies:

Intelligence came from non-intelligence. or that it's potential could have always been here...
Beauty came from non-beauty. as above...
Morality came from non-morality. as above...
Design came from non-design. don't know about that
McDonald's cup came from an intelligent cup designer.
Human body that self-repairs came from chance. i'm not saying anything definately came from chance, i'm just saying i don't know.


So let's get basic at the end here. You and I are walking and find something incredibly simple compared to you or me or the universe: a glass ball or a McDonald's cup. Are there a million ways those two things could have come into existence? Or is there a glass ball designer or McDonald's cup designer?

Grace & peace to you, Benedict.

Joe

cup - product of man

man - product of universe

different things.

to stop us from going round in more circles, i think at this point we should recap on what is, for me, the most important point.

you say there HAS to be a maker. the universe HAD to come from somewhere.

i say ok...then who made the maker?

why can the maker be infinite in a way the universe can't?

why can't the universe be infinite in terms of time when it has achieved that in terms of space?


you could look at it this way - the universe IS the maker...?

Longsufferer
Sep 21st 2008, 07:07 PM
This world´s wisdom, which is philosophy, teaches to be calm when troubles come; Christ teaches us to rejoice.

benedict
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:56 PM
This world´s wisdom, which is philosophy, teaches to be calm when troubles come; Christ teaches us to rejoice.............eh?

tango
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:41 AM
you say there HAS to be a maker. the universe HAD to come from somewhere.

i say ok...then who made the maker?

why can the maker be infinite in a way the universe can't?

why can't the universe be infinite in terms of time when it has achieved that in terms of space?


Benedict, you can look at the universe one of two ways. Your question is entirely reasonable, but it actually boils down to some fairly simple options.

As TrustGzus has said, everything has a maker. You were made by your parents, who were made by their parents, who were made by their parents, and so on. Go back far enough and you come to what you might call a point of singularity, the source of it all.

Either that something is a divine being such as God (i.e. there is a Creator), or everything happened by chance (i.e. there is no Creator).

If we examine the first option, assuming that God exists means everything else falls into place. Everything fits into an ecosystem because it was designed that way, we appreciate the beauty of nature because we were designed that way, we have a constant yearning for fulfilment because we were designed for a relationship with God, and so on.

If we examine the second option, assuming that there is no God and everything appeared by chance, we then need to make numerous other steps of faith from there. We have to accept that something happened from nothing. Then we have to accept that life appeared from non-life (i.e. a bunch of amino acids got together by chance and simply started to live). Then we have to accept that a bunch of amino acids evolved into something more complex, purely by chance, and that the first living thing had chance to reproduce before it died. We also have to accept that nothing happened to squash these early life forms, and that our constant yearning for meaning in life is just a psychological anomaly.

Personally I find it takes more faith to believe in random evolution caused by nothing than it does to believe in God.