Why God??!!

[Mart]

what is difference between:
- I believe in Catholicism
- I believe in Jesus
?

[Black Knight84]

P.S. Sorry about all the spelling errors/ bad sentencing/bad grammar. I'm a touch typist and I didn't spellcheck. I might go over it again tomorrow to make sure my points are correct! lol. Goodnight, I'm not mad now.

[Mart]

My question is about the actual difference, I'm catholic and I believe in Jesus. So it's like I have two possible choices. You might actually ask a bit different:
- Catholic
- Baptist
- Lutheran
etc...
but they all believe in Jesus.

[joncha]

I addressed that point back on page two, mart7x5.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But what kind of evidential standard do you apply to religion?

Since it makes claims that are basically scientific - such as that there is a god - it has to meet those standards. Otherwise, my religion could be that Newtonian physics was right, and then use it to annoy rational people ad nauseum by telling people to "deny Einstein, just have faith".

Such as? An example of where the two contradict would help. Remember, that there are certain assumptions held by science that cannot be applied to religion, the first one being an empirical standard for evidence. Science has no claim to the spiritual realm.

Turning water into wine, perhaps?

And since the "spiritual realm" is part of the observable universe, it is subject to empirical standards. If it isn't part of the observable universe, then it does not exist, by Occam's Razor.

Excellent point. Why do I believe in Christianity instead of Buddhism? Because Christ died and rose from the dead.

Why believe the claims of Christians over those of Buddhists?

I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation of the empty tomb admitted by the Jews after the death of Christ.

You never thought perhaps he was removed?

Of course, I make several other presuppositions that need to be also examined in order to verify the claim.

1. God exists.
2. Scriptures are an accurate historical account of the time.

Both of which result in circular logic, because those are exactly the presumptions I'm contesting!

This is the heart of the matter, eh? Why do we need God, when we can do so much ourselves? God is quite kind in that he allows us to make our own decisions, yet he also provides us with some kind of moral compass.

No he doesn't. Only if you accept that one ought to do what God says, do his statements have any moral worth (even assuming he exists).

How do you explain the existence of your conscience without God?

Nature, duh.

How do explain the existance of God's sense of right and wrong, without an even BIGGER "God" that created him?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ockham's Razor argues that in a contest between two competing theories, given equal evidence for both, the simplest explaination is more probable to be correct.

Why have a multiplicity of causes?

Why have any?

You can't argue "because you need a cause for the universe", because then you have to accept an infinite number of creators, one to create each creator.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, does explaining away Christianity as a myth, really symplify things?

How do you explain the fact that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses, in the presence of other eyewitnesses, and claims not to be a fable, but the truth?

Surely, if there were discreprencies between the account and the eyewitnesses, the eyewitnesses would correct the mistakes.

Finally, the simplest affirmation of the Christian faith comes from 1st Corinthians, which is written not more than 20 years after the death of Christ. Surely this is not enough time for a whole mythology to arise over the person of Jesus of Nazareth, since there are still living eyewitnesses.

Do you also accept the truth of the Quran?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich
You can't argue "because you need a cause for the universe", because then you have to accept an infinite number of creators, one to create each creator.

Just to head off the obvious response that is going to come:

"Oh, but god exists outside space-time, so he need not have a cause."

The same holds true for a non-theist beginning of the universe, as there initially would have been no space or time. So god is not a necessary explanation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich
[

I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation of the empty tomb admitted by the Jews after the death of Christ.

You never thought perhaps he was removed?

This is where we see Ockham (or Occam or whatever)'s Razor being misused.

If it is indeed true that there was a Jesus, and if it is indeed true he died as the Gospels claim, and if he indeed was entombed as they claim, and if his body was indeed missing as they claim (note all these "ifs" are all predicated on things that are not substantiated), then the leap of logic that the empty tomb = Jesus resurrected is NOT the simplest explanation.

A supernatural explanation is by no means simple, especially since we have yet to find any empiric evidence of the supernatural occuring in this world. So a simpler explanation is that the body was removed by his fanatical devotees who then went around claiming he wasn't really dead. Or that someone else removed it, and the devotees jumped to that same conclusion because of their strong desire to believe and to have relief over the heartbreak of his being killed. After all, his death would have been a huge blow to everyone who thought he was the Messiah, as everyone believed the Messiah would come and liberate Judea from the Romans and reestablish Israel.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Black Knight84
1. People thought it was scientifically impossible to be in two places in the same time up until recently. However that was proven wrong. The following is an excerpt from my minister preaching about Science and God, the sermon was titled: "Why God when Science has all the answers". Just before you roll your eyes, this was not a sermon bagging out science. It was not a sermon intended to have Christianity fight Science. Read on and find out...

"I think we should be very clear about what Science has *not* done, because there is now a world of mythology that has now developed around science. Mythologies like this: the idea that science is a collection of immutable laws dictating how everything has been and will be for all time. Now there is an enormous amount of reliability in scientific knowledge, that is clear. The pioneer space craft was launched back in the 80's and on the basis of some pretty full on calculations that space craft has completed an incredible mission through the outer solar system. Those calculations were based on laws of nature that scientists could rely on and calculate on, but please understand that scientific laws have not been discovered written in some manual somewhere. All they are is observations about the world that we have grown to trust, they haven't failed us yet.

We are used to the law of gravity, we trust it everyday, but can I say that's all these laws are and that's all they ever can be. The idea that 'swans are white' is a truth that you can rely on until you discover a continent on the bottom of the world where 'swans are black', you see, it's that kind of law.

The history of science is full of classic examples where what seemed to be well established as law has suddenly had to be thrown out the window. Back in the early 20th century it seemed that Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations were going to explain the whole physical universe and all that was left for science to do was to fill in the gaps. Sciene was feeling pretty cocky around the turn of the century.

That was until two scientists, Rayleigh and Jeans performed their famous Black Body Radiation experiment where they found that Newtons' laws stop working when you get down to the sub-atomic level. In fact they never worked at that level as they were an approximation for macroscopic objects. Turns out there is a whole universe of sub-atomic particles and forces that had never been conceived of before, this is where the quarks and nuons and gluons come in.

Scientific laws are only ever tentative. This is real science, and the truth is, is that science can't absolutely prove anything. What science can do is show that one idea is false and that another idea is a better explanation.
We used to say that an object can't be in two places at the same time. We used to say that until Young's double split experiment demonstrated that electrons are in two places at the same time, it has to do with wave particle duality and the uncertainty principle."
~Tim Blencowe, Minister, Petersham Baptist.
([EDIT] Tim was a physics teacher for several years before he became a minister)

One of the things science shows us is impossible, though, is walking on water with bare feet

2. I'm a little confused.. you say you studied large portions of The Bible yet the only answer you can come up with is.... "Nope, they accepted that God existed". Perhaps you should read one of the gospels again and see just how much it had to take for many of them to believe in him. I mean Jesus was physically in their presence and yet they doubted him, they doubted him when he calmed the storm, they doubted him when he fed 5000 people, they even doubted him at his crucifixion! Peter denied he knew Christ three times! Judas betrayed him! When the tomb was found empty by the women the disciples still didn't believe and they went and had to check it out for themselves! It was only when Jesus actually revealed himself to them in flesh and blood with the wounds visibly showing, yet he was in perfect health did they believe! It took *alot* before they truly believed in Christ. Yes of course they accepted that God existed, but look how much it took before they accepted that Jesus was the Son of God.

They had problems understanding and accepting that Jesus was the son of God. They never had problems accepting the existance of an omnipotent creator.

4. Hmm well evidence for his miracles... Look up the non-christian sources, they support that he was a great healer.
The New Testament.. I know you will roll your eyes but many people who had dealings with Jesus (the good and the bad) were around when the New Testament was written and it wasn't contested that he healed many. Are you prepared to dismiss the Bible just as Religious Babble? This Babble that thousands of Christians died for during the Roman Empire? This 'babble' that the writers themselves spent enormous amounts of time writing and verifying and preaching at risk of their own lives...oh that's right you believe they were deluded! lol, I forgot.

There are plenty of claims that other religious leaders healed many... but you don't accept them as true. The Romans and Greeks thought prayer to their gods healed many... but you don't accept that.

5. Yes Saul was 'religous' he was a JEW! NOT a Christian! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Yup, but in relation to an atheist, there isn't. An atheist doesn't have any more trouble accepting one of the religions over the other.

It's like you renouncing your belief in Athiesm for Christianity!

Intellectually, it isn't. In renouncing atheism, I would be accepting the existance of supernatural (I hate that word, btw) beings, whereas a change from Judaism to Christianity just lets me accept new things about the God I already believe in.

I find it frustrating that I am dedicating a substantial amount of time to giving your replies a decent response and you reply with one sentence answers, my apologies for being curt in some of my responses but your one word answers which do not do you credit, are the source of my frustrations. Anyhow I really hope people read this seriously and not think oh here's another do-gooding christian trying to convert us all. This is a very very serious issue which can't be swatted aside with .. oh is this a krishnabot? Or...hmm is this a standard dl post? I mean what the heck is a krishnabot? and DL? And NO I'm not a wandering missionary! I used to be in this forum under another sign in name. I spent alot of time here in the lead up to MOO3 which turned out to be a disaster until the patch came out but it is not as if I came here as a random. I knew this to be a good forum with intelligent people on it, that is why I originally posted here, because I love having good discussions!

I just happen to be concise. You tend to write longer, more drawn out explanations. I just cut to the heart of the matter.

[Elok]

Uh, Kucinich/Sky, "there is a god" is about as unscientific a claim as you can get, as that's the kind of statement that's most difficult to prove or disprove. You can't treat a thinking being as a controlled variable, even if you argue that behavior is deterministic. Even with behavior-as-consequence-of-nature, you have to know a person to predict his/her actions, and of course that doesn't work if you need to predict them in order to prove his/her existence in the first place. Just as a disclaimer, I'm not arguing to try and convert you, I'm arguing against bothering with the argument in the first place.

[Kuciwalker]

ANY claim about the universe is scientific (well, it's in the realm of science, at least ). Some are, by their nature, untestable, but that's why we use Occam's Razor.

Just as a disclaimer, I'm not arguing to try and convert you, I'm arguing against bothering with the argument in the first place.

Basically, you're saying religionists are trolls by their very nature, so don't bite

I like biting, though

[Black Knight84]

[SIZE=1]
1. One of the things science shows us is impossible, though, is walking on water with bare feet


2. They had problems understanding and accepting that Jesus was the son of God. They never had problems accepting the existance of an omnipotent creator.


3. There are plenty of claims that other religious leaders healed many... but you don't accept them as true. The Romans and Greeks thought prayer to their gods healed many... but you don't accept that.

4.

5. Yes Saul was 'religous' he was a JEW! NOT a Christian! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Yup, but in relation to an atheist, there isn't. An atheist doesn't have any more trouble accepting one of the religions over the other.

5.

It's like you renouncing your belief in Athiesm for Christianity!

Intellectually, it isn't. In renouncing atheism, I would be accepting the existance of supernatural (I hate that word, btw) beings, whereas a change from Judaism to Christianity just lets me accept new things about the God I already believe in.

1. Scientifically it is impossible for a man to walk on the water. Fortunately Jesus wasn't merely a man (Peter was, but Jesus was helping him in that part of walking on water). As much as I would love to test this, by having humans as my test subjects I would be testing the wrong kind of people and unfortunately there are no more 'sons of God' hanging around waiting to be tested.

2. And you think that, that is a minor issue? Jesus was killed for claiming to be the Son of God and his followers persecuted for it. Many other religions believe in an omnipotent creator as well. So you don't believe it would be a major life change for a Muslim to convert to Christianity?

3. Did their Gods do what Jesus did? It's all very nice to say that Romans prayed to their Gods, those claims are unverifiable however the claims of what Jesus did and who he was, as I've shown you are a little bit more than the claims about the Roman God's.

4 + 5. Well if converting to Christianity is not that much of a deal then why didn't all the Jews convert that easily? Perhaps it has something to do with their culture and their traditions. Look how Jesus was painted in the Talmud? With a very negative brush, oh but hang on, they already believe in an omnipotent creator so it's all good!

[Black Knight84]

[SIZE=1]

I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation of the empty tomb admitted by the Jews after the death of Christ.

You never thought perhaps he was removed?

Would you care to elaborate on this point? Who do you think moved him? His followers? They were too scared to go anywhere near the tomb and if they did the Roman guards that were posted there would have arrested them. So could it be the Pharisees? Ha Ha! Lol NO, they wouldn't have anything to gain and everything to lose if they did that! Perhaps it was the Romans Soldiers

The Pharisees in Matthew 28:11-15 came up with this argument:

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep'. If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been circulated among the Jews to this very day".

Well as we can see the Roman soldiers had nothing to gain by stealing the dead body. They were so scared of being punished they went to the Jewish leaders and followed the alibi.
So did Jesus' followers come during the night?
Well there are few main issues if that is true:
1. The guard on watch at the tomb happened to miss a few characters rolling away an extremely heavy seal that would take several men to move, it would also be pretty noisy in the movement process.
2. There was no watch yet somehow the movement of this heavy stone didn't wake up the guards
3. The disciples died for a lie they had created?

**Oh and concerning the disciples, I was a little mistaken, some of them still doubted even after Jesus was physcially resurrected:

Matthew 28:16-20

"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age".

So it is logically impossible that the disciples themselves came and took the body, it is also impossible that the Jews or Roman soldiers did either? Can you think of a more logical explanation other than the one the Gospels claim?

[joncha]

To summarize: the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.