/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I'll bite.

Here's the thing. Discussion of the proofs of God's existence have been played out. We're both using the same evidence, so it's a question of opinion.

What I will say is that you have to be honest with yourself and decide - have I decided already the outcome? Does the evidence actually matter?

For example, if I tell you that the person we worship was a lowly carpenter's son from some back-water end of civilisation in an obscure town, the response would be that this is far too parochial to be plausible. Why should the Son of God manifest himself in such a place (Hitchens has made this point often)? To ordinary to be true.

Very well, the person we worship performed miracles, could achieve our redemption through his death and was not defeated by death. Too ludicrous? Implausible? Now, it's unbelievable because it really is incredible.

So here's the point, because you HAVE ALREADY DECIDED that God doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter what evidence is presented.

Therefore, the question is not IF God exists, but what if he COULD. This brings into the debate the nature of God, and his relationship with his creation.

But what you need to do is be actually open to the idea of the possibility of there being a God, at least for the sake of debate.

I would like to add one other thing. Among religious people, we may refer to Scientism, which is a slightly pejorative term for the epitsemological, ontological and existential philosophy of Materialism. It goes thus:

>"We already understand the nature of our reality and only the details now need to be filled in. The method by which this truth is being revealed is science."

Before diving into this, really and truly decide if you believe this to be the case. My position along with other Christians is that this does a great disservice to what reality consists of and is the ultimate in human hubris.

>>2673

> I don't accept faith as a standard of evidence.

Of course you do.

I contest that, just as I have things which I take on faith, so do you. Have you heard the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?' You take some extraordinary claims as indisputable fact despite not knowing or indeed having any way to know the truth or falsity of them.

I'll make some such claims:

-You are living in a non-dream.

-You are living in a non-simulation.

-You are of sound mind and correctly perceiving the world around you - i.e. you are not experiencing tactile, auditory and visual hallucinations.

-Other people aren't 'philosophical zombies'.

All of these things are just as unfalsifiable as belief in God, yet you accept them without asking for evidence, correct?

>>2674

>But what you need to do is be actually open to the idea of the possibility of there being a God, at least for the sake of debate.

I am. Hence I'm seriously trying to discuss this. This isn't the me shitting on you thread, it's the me honestly attempting to discuss things thread.

On "Scientism", that's kind of right? Science is a good model of finding truth, but it's not a perfect model. I'm open to other ways to find truth, but they have to be rigorous and not one note.

>>2673

>I mean, I could go through the arguments for god's existence?

If there is no God, how came this universe into existance?

It is a fact that something cannot come from nothing, nothing cannot create.

So there has to be something that created the universe to that this rule does not apply. For instance God.

>who created God?

Invalid question, God is eternal and time just his concept.

There is no need for a creator of God, because God is metaphysical and physics therefore do not apply to him.

>>2677

>On "Scientism", that's kind of right? Science is a good model of finding truth, but it's not a perfect model. I'm open to other ways to find truth, but they have to be rigorous and not one note.

Religion is science too, you can study theology in University.

Theologians have always had a rational attempt to solve theological questions. They did not just make stuff up or made claims without a reasoning.

>>2675

There are a LOT of arguments about god's existence. Going through all of them would be a pain, but feel free to bring them up.

First mover is a weird one. The first steps are MOSTLY reasonable. Causality seems right, but I'd like to point out that this a strange and odd topic, and there are far stranger things in the world, right now, then it turning out that the way the universe began doesn't follow the normal rules of the universe, but that's all finicky stuff. In general, yeah okay, first cause most exist.

But after that it falls to shit. The image you attached is a terrible form. It's the chicken and the egg, for one, because all actuals rely on potentials and all actuals rely on potentials, so why the fuck do we stop on actuals? But on the whole there's two big reasons why it falls apart.

One, it's the very definition of special pleading. "All things have to follow these rules, except for our special thing" - then those rules don't apply to everything.

But the more important thing is that it's nowhere near rigorous enough. This argument, essentially boils down to.

>Must be first cause

>There can be no other first cause, other then god

>Therefore, god.

Which is perfectly fine logic - but, the second thing there, is an attempt to prove a negative. For this argument to work, you have to prove that the only possible thing that could be the first cause, is god. And nobody treats this as an endeavor as hard as it is.

>>2676

There's a lot of discussion about that kind of thing.

My personal response is, how should I act or believe differently, if those things were true?

All of those things are things I can have no evidence of, by definition - so while I'm not going to be able to arrive at possibly correct conclusions, there never was any way for me to in the first place. So I may as well act and believe the way I naively think I should act and believe.

>>2680

>First mover is a weird one.

Aqunas also did not mean it to be an argumen for God's existence, but I like it.

>One, it's the very definition of special pleading. "All things have to follow these rules, except for our special thing" - then those rules don't apply to everything.

If there is no metaphysics there is only physics.

Axioms apply to physics.

If there is a God he is metaphysical.

This is a completely valid reasoning. If there is no metaphysics everything has to work just within physical laws. Metaphysical beings do not have to work according to physical laws, that's within their nature.

>Which is perfectly fine logic - but, the second thing there, is an attempt to prove a negative. For this argument to work, you have to prove that the only possible thing that could be the first cause, is god. And nobody treats this as an endeavor as hard as it is.

So it does prove that there is someting beyond this world?

>>2679

I'd dispute theology being a science, as the basis of science is repeatable experiments which isn't really how theology works, but I know theologians don't just make stuff up, they actively try. But, that doesn't mean that they're right, or even close to right.

>>2683

> as the basis of science is repeatable experiments

A rather bad basis to rely on to be honest. So let's say we have tried something a thousand times and always the same result.

Is it infalsifiable true then? No, the 1001st time could differ.

"sciences" rely on thesis and are not even meant to be true. They evolve and change all the time. Very little is left of what was considered a scientific truth a hundred year ago.

But it does not really matter at all since sciences and religion are not conflicting topics.

>>2682

>This is a completely valid reasoning. If there is no metaphysics everything has to work just within physical laws. Metaphysical beings do not have to work according to physical laws, that's within their nature.

I don't really get what you're trying to say here, mind trying to elaborate/rephrase it?

>So it does prove that there is someting beyond this world?

If by "This world" you mean "The current state of the universe", probably? Once you start trying to attribute properties is where I'd draw the line. But there's something fishy going on there.

>>2685

>I don't really get what you're trying to say here, mind trying to elaborate/rephrase it?

At first there was nothing. Then there was something.

Impossible in physics.

At first there was something beyond physics.

Then there was this + the physical world.

Possible.

> Once you start trying to attribute properties is where I'd draw the line

Attributing properties?

>If by "This world" you mean "The current state of the universe", probably?

What was that? Why can't it be God?

>>2684

>Is it infalsifiable true then? No, the 1001st time could differ.

Yeah, but you're missing a whole lot of detail there, bub.

Truth with a capital T isn't something you or I get to hold in our hands. That isn't how this thing works. We are humans. And as humans we interact with the world, and get information from it. We can generalize this information we get from the world to be "truth" with a small t. There are problems in how we get it, but generally we get it.

Science is an attempt to model truth. It's not a perfect, one-to-one representation, but it's an attempt to draw it. And it's generally pretty low resolution, but it's damn good. It's really good. I don't know if you've noticed, but science really does get what is true right a lot of the time. A lot of that is being able to change and adapt to the truth, but it works.

>>2681

>how should I act or believe differently, if those things were true?

They are all assumptions that you base the way you do act on.

>while I'm not going to be able to arrive at possibly correct conclusions, there never was any way for me to in the first place.

In stark contrast to the topic at hand.

>So I may as well act and believe the way I naively think I should act and believe.

So you're using assumed ignorance as an excuse for selfish behaviour and turning away from guidance.

>>2686

>Impossible in physics.

… why? Physics is a field of research, not laws which must be obeyed. If something happens it can happen in physics.

>Attributing properties?

For example, "Timelessness" or any other kind of property.

>What was that? Why can't it be God?

It might be god. But it might be any number of other things, too. There's a space of possible things it could be. I don't accept that the argument from first cause manages to zero out that the first cause MUST be god, I only accept that it leads to there being something as a first cause, and even then only mostly.

>>2687

>Truth with a capital T isn't something you or I get to hold in our hands.

Isn't it? If you only accept repeatable experience as way then this is true.

>but science really does get what is true right a lot of the time

>>2684

> Very little is left of what was considered a scientific truth a hundred year ago.

Will be the same in 100 years from now btw

Anyway

>>2684

>But it does not really matter at all since sciences and religion are not conflicting topics.

I see no relation to religion.

Many scientists are religious, you know. Like the pope.

>>2689

>… why? Physics is a field of research, not laws which must be obeyed.

Physics is constructed around axioms and in physics the laws of physics have to be obeyed.

>For example, "Timelessness" or any other kind of property.

Time is a fator like space. If there was once a "period" without space = nothing it is reasonable to assume that there was likely no time too.

When did time start?

>But it might be any number of other things, too.

For example?

>>2688

Anon, I have no idea what you are talking about.

>>2690

I forgot to mention, but yeah, I know that religion and science are perfectly possible of coexisting.

>Very little is left of what was considered a scientific truth a hundred year ago.

A long time ago people thought the Earth was flat. Later on, they thought the Earth was a sphere. Now, we believe that the Earth is a roundish object. The point isn't that the first two were wrong and now we've got the right answer, the point was we've gotten closer. As we find out more things, gaps in our model disappear, and our model explains more and more things, predicts more and more things. It's not truth, but it's a good predictor of it.

>Isn't it? If you only accept repeatable experience as way then this is true.

I should clarify that I am merely unaware of a way to Truth. And that I severely doubt that any such thing could possibly exist.

>>2691

>Physics is constructed around axioms and in physics the laws of physics have to be obeyed.

No. Physics is a model of reality. If reality says something, physics doesn't get to say no, physics changes to match reality. In this sense, physics can't be wrong, because the moment evidence which shows a part of physics to be wrong exists, it's adopted into physics.

>Time is a fator like space. If there was once a "period" without space = nothing it is reasonable to assume that there was likely no time too.

Look. We're presuming that there must be a first cause. This is because there must be a first cause, ergo there's a first cause. So, what is this first cause like? The answer is no evidence exists, so we can't say.

>For example?

Thing X, where thing x is a thing that can be the first cause but isn't god. You have to show that thing x doesn't exist for the argument to be valid.

>>2692

I should clarify that I'm not dismissing what you have to say, but I legit don't understand what you're trying to say.

>>2695

Yes it has strayed froma pro God argument a bit.

>>2694

>Thing X, where thing x is a thing that can be the first cause but isn't god.

So would there be any difference to God except for the name?

>>2696

>So would there be any difference to God except for the name?

Yes.

I'll rephrase my argument a bit, rather then us going around in circles.

Why should I accept that the first cause has the properties of god? For example, why should I accept that the first cause is omnipotent?

>>2697

>For example, why should I accept that the first cause is omnipotent?

>properties of god?

There are people that believe in God but not in him being omnipotent.

So essentially this is the point where we only have to determine what "thingx"/God is like.

Also this video could interest you, I always found it rather moving.

>>2698

>So essentially this is the point where we only have to determine what "thingx"/God is like.

Thing X can be very limited, doesn't have to have a mind or any kind of awareness, and basically be anything. I don't find god to be a good descriptor of this thing.

Why did the apostles do what they do?

After Jesus rose from the dead all of them went to the world and started spreading the gospel.

But why if they haven't seen im rise from the dead?

They fiercely believed that they saw him rise, most of them even became martyrs.

Anyone else you could dismiss as being "victim" to a third party, but they just relied on what they themselve had seen and experienced.

How can one explain that?

>>2702

>After Jesus rose from the dead all of them went to the world and started spreading the gospel.

This doesn't match my understanding of history? There aren't any records of this happening. Just of Paul's church, who wasn't the apostle Paul, later on.

There isn't anything for apostles becoming matyrs, either. It's commonly said, but I've never seen a source, even after actively looking for one.

>>2698

Tried watching the video, it's mostly just annoying. It's mostly him talking about stupid stuff and I can't help but feel I'm supposed to equate it to atheism.

>>2704

>This doesn't match my understanding of history? There aren't any records of this happening.

Sure it does. Peter was crucified, Thomas went to India etc

>There isn't anything for apostles becoming matyrs, either.

http://www.apostles.com/apostlesdied.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

http://www.about-jesus.org/martyrs.htm

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/sep23.html

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/martyrdom.html

Andrew: Martyrdom by crucifixion (bound, not nailed, to a cross).1

Bartholomew (Often identified with Nathaniel in the New Testament): Martyrdom by being either 1. Beheaded, or 2. Flayed alive and crucified, head downward.1

James the Greater: Martyrdom by being beheaded1 or stabbed2 with a sword.

James the Lesser: Martyrdom by being thrown from a pinnacle of the Temple at Jerusalem , then stoned and beaten with clubs.2

John: Died of old age.1

Jude (Often identified with Thaddeus in the New Testament): Martyrdom by being beaten to death with a club.2

Judas: Suicide.1

Matthew: Martyrdom by being burned, stoned, or beheaded.1

Peter: Martyrdom by crucifixion at Rome with his head downwards.1

Philip: Martyrdom.2

Simon: Martyrdom by crucifixion.1 or being sawn in half.2

Thomas: Martyrdom by being stabbed with a spear.2

>Just of Paul's church, who wasn't the apostle Paul, later on.

Paul's church?

>>2705

He starts about him being an atheist

>>2706

Uh. You don't seem to understand sources. I meant historical, not random things online.

The best one you've got is

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/sep23.html

which explains it pretty well. We don't have any actual accounts of the lives of the apostles. There was an oral tradition telling of how the apostles were killed, apparently, and that was written down at some point in the third/fourth century, but where this knowledge came from and it's validity is a mystery.

I think I've got a bit of my history mixed up with Paul, though. Paul was an apostle, just not one of the twelve. Paul's spread of the gospel and his teachings formed the start of the church, and you find a lot of his stuff within the teachings of every branch of Christianity.

>>2708

>Uh. You don't seem to understand sources. I meant historical,

Oh they talk about historical sources like Origin or Eusebius, it is part of early church tradition. Is there any reason to doubt them being martyrs since it seems to be the established view?

>Paul was an apostle, just not one of the twelve

ok. We can call anyone in apostolic succession apostle then.

> Paul's spread of the gospel and his teachings formed the start of the church, and you find a lot of his stuff within the teachings of every branch of Christianity.

Formed the start of the Church is too far. Very important – yes. But the other apostles and Saints were important too.

Also Peter as the first pope is at least equal to him, if not more.

>>2709

>Is there any reason to doubt them being martyrs since it seems to be the established view?

… It's written three centuries after its happening, from a person who's part of a religion, who's mythology revolves around these people?

>>2710

So they made it up?

Like they convinced people that those people that died hundred years ago so fiercely that around 300AD no one would question it anymore?

>>2711

>So they made it up?

Who is they btw? Someone must have started this plot after all. With what reasoning?

>they wanted to spread the religion

Yeah. I will just tell the future convertees that the founders of the religion I want to convince them of were all brutally killed.

>>2711

I don't know what happened. There's a billion fault points, it's oral tradition. Someone somewhere could have fabricated something. But more likely, as time goes on and things are passed by word of mouth, details get flubbed and added in.

I don't know where the information came from. I can't even pretend to guess. But I don't believe it to be reliable.

>>2713

OP again, I'm going to go to sleep now.

If you post something I'll probably get to you tomorrow.

>>2711

I'm a new Atheist entering the thread so I'll use use a trip here.

>all the Christians that died

The idea that Christians were systematically persecuted under the Romans for centuries is a myth perpetuated by the church. Apart from Nero's short reign, there were isolated persecutions by governors who considered Christianity a threat to the status quo. The Roman Empire was generally tolerant of religions, which is why they had so much syncreticism.

Once the church had become the default religion, they greatly exaggerated the persecution myth. This myth is further explained in the famous "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" where Gibbon purposefully avoided using church sources as a historian.

>>2702

Hello, another fedora here.

Even if we accept this as fact I'm not seeing how it's particularly strong reasoning. People are willing to do many irrational things for irrational reasons. The heavens gate cult castrated themselves and committed suicide to hitch a ride on hale-bopp. The Mormons were persecuted to the extent that they were literally being hunted and fled to barren utah. Does this dedication prove the veracity of either group's beliefs.

>>2723

>The idea that Christians were systematically persecuted under the Romans for centuries is a myth perpetuated by the church.

No. Christians were always and still are the most persecuted group on earth.

>>2713

>I don't know where the information came from. I can't even pretend to guess. But I don't believe it to be reliable.

This is a decision.

>>2725

>I'm not seeing how it's particularly strong reasoning.

We can be fairly sure that they were sure to have seen Christ risen from the dead.

>>2844

In a similar vein we can be reasonably sure Joseph Smith truly believed he spoke to an angel named Moroni given the lengths he was willing to go to. However, this doesn't do much to establish the truth of his claims.

>>2844

>No. Christians were always and still are the most persecuted group on earth.

Can you support this claim? Christians are the most numerous believers, and the default majority in many countries. Therefore their group is the most likely to be the persecutors of the minorities.

>>2862

Look at how Christians are treated in the Middle East, India, Asia and that cesspit Israel. Their churches are routinely desecrated, the members harassed and in many occasions they are silenced, censored or killed by the governments or vigilantes.

By contrast, historically Christian nations (now secularist) offer the greatest amount of personal liberty to any and all distinct groups, often at the relative expense of Christian liberty/rights, though as of yet nothing nearly as severe as the aforementioned states.

>>2870

>The USA was originally secular until the Great Awakening.

That's not true. Firstly the nation is compromised of more than its elite few; the masses were certainly Christian and vocal about it, hence decency and sodomy laws being in effect from the start. Speaking of which, Jefferson introduced such a law himself in 1779

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Also, just because the more "popular" founding fathers were deists or atheists doesn't mean all of them were. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, and others were all proper Christians.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

This idea of separation of church and state is found in one of Jefferson's personal letters, and has no bearing on the foundation of our society. Simply, Congress is not allowed to make laws concerning religion, but neither is it forbidden or discouraged for any other governing body to do so; and they did, constantly.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

>France under Napoleon

France had a history long, long before Napoleon. Also secularist isn't Atheist. Napoleon himself was a Christian; though I've no doubt he struggled with his faith like we all do, there are plenty of documented instances of him praising and recognizing Christ's divinity, and none in which he denies it.

http://www.godtheoriginalintent.com/PDF%20Chapters/Napoleon%20Bonaparte.pdf

>See what I did there? Atheists are a more persecuted group than Christians. So are gays.

Also, not true, because there are, most definitely, more Christians than there are gays and atheists. Doesn't mean they don't also suffer persecution, but the numbers simply cannot compare.

Kind of a bs hippy website but they have the stats.

https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/

*Side not, I really, really, really dislike Jefferson.*

>>2871

Regardless of the personal beliefs of the founding fathers there's little doubt that their intention and ultimate design was a secular nation. I've always said that this is for the benefit of Christians being that freedom of religion is one of the things that is defacto protected in a secular government.

Religious law is a fundamental violation of liberty. It would be unjust to govern the non-religious or non-christian under christian law just as it would be unjust for you to live under sharia law. This is why secularism is so important.

It's very fortunate we live in a time where those abominable sodomy laws are never enforced. The sooner they're expunged from the books the better.

Regarding persecution, I think this is an ultimately pointless line of argument. Many groups are claiming the title of most persecuted. The slavs, native americans, irish, gypsies, etc. There are tons. The claim itself is nearly impossible to verify. At least scientifically.

Is wisdom and advancement meaningless as the teacher says? How would we enjoy the technology we have today if men had not pursued it?

http://biblehub.com/niv/ecclesiastes/1.htm

>>2673

I don't know if this has been said yet, but you cannot comprehend God. Which is what you want to do.

The only way to know God, truly know God, is with your HEART, not your MIND.

And the best way to do that, is to PRAY…

and to do something that most atheists refuse to do, which is to say the sinner's prayer, with meaning and conviction.

If you do that, you will then KNOW for 100% sure that He is real.

But I find that most atheists would rather not believe… so they choose not to believe. It's kind of like telling a scientist to prove a new element, they have to do this specific experiment. But the scientist refuses to do the experiment, and still claims the element doesn't exist.

>>8948

I have to add to this: Jesus Christ doesn't exist in a saved Christians mind, He LIVES in a saved Christians heart.

There are many so-called Christians today that THINK they KNOW God, but they don't. Because you can't know God, Jesus, with your brain.