Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[Gary Mac]

Yes, I know better than to be flim-flammed from the pseudo-science that is "evolution".



In name only.

But you certainly are gullible for means belief system for a god.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I love this . You claim not to have a clue as to how it all began...

I just got done posting: "I think that that is basically what happened..." There was nothing for the Big Bang to come from.

...but somehow know that it was not supernatural.

The "supernatural" as far as I can tell is the product of the human imagination and nothing more. What we cook up that way has no power to create universes.

For an honest person to claim that the cause of X was not Y, he would have to know the cause of X in order to make such a claim.

That's incorrect. To know that Y didn't cause X, then all we need to know is that Y has no causal power. If so, then we don't need to know anything about X to conclude it wasn't created by Y.

Kicking the can down the road and redefining terms does not help you.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

So the observed universe had a begging but does not apply to the whole universe.

As any person educated in modern science should know, astronomers have made great strides in dating the observed universe. So far it's pretty sure that what we observe is not eternal. But of course, we don't know that about the universe we don't observe. If there is no universe beyond the observed universe, then the observed universe came from nothing. I think that that is the truth.

So the determining factor as to what had a beginning or not is what is observed. Really?

I think so. It is prudent to base conclusions on what we know rather than speculate on what we don't know. We know that the observed universe is the product of the Big Bang. Since we know of nothing "before" that, then I say assume there was nothing until we have evidence to conclude otherwise.

Similar to stating that the portion of the Amazon rainforest that is being affected by global warming is the portion that is observed.

That's a poor analogy because we've essentially seen all of the Amazon jungle. But of course if there was an unobserved Amazon, then we wouldn't know how climate change has affected it.

I guess you don’t owe your existence to your parents.

The existence of our forms was largely determined by recently inherited traits, but of course the matter that makes up our substance is billions of years old.

List one thing that came into existence that did not owe its existence to something else. Basic cause and effect.

I posted that essentially everything in this world owes the existence of its form to something else, so I'm not denying that all forms have been based on other, earlier forms. Can you name one thing whose substance came into being from something else? I don't know of any examples.

 

[Towerwatchman]

The "supernatural" as far as I can tell is the product of the human imagination and nothing more. What we cook up that way has no power to create universes.

That's incorrect. To know that Y didn't cause X, then all we need to know is that Y has no causal power. If so, then we don't need to know anything about X to conclude it wasn't created by Y

You either claim omniscience and state that nowhere in the universe Y caused X. Or you prove that Y did not cause X using positive evidence. Similar to the example of Santa Claus that I gave you. I don't prove the nonexistence of Santa Claus by claiming that he is a myth, but by showing that there is no toy factory at the north pole, no sleigh on the radar on 24 of December, I ate the cookies I drank the milk, I brought the toys. That’s how you prove your point, waving your hand and saying it’s a myth is both dishonest and lazy.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

Explains a lot.

As any person educated in modern science should know, astronomers have made great strides in dating the observed universe. So far it's pretty sure that what we observe is not eternal. But of course, we don't know that about the universe we don't observe. If there is no universe beyond the observed universe, then the observed universe came from nothing. I think that that is the truth.

I find it rather amusing that you appeal to education and continue to commit this elementary fallacy. Why? Any person with an eight grade education can figure out the fallacy and stop.

Fallacy of Anonymous Authority.
“When an unspecified sources use as evidence for the claim. This is commonly indicated by the phrases such as “they said, that it has been said, I heard that, studies show’ or generalize groups such as ‘scientists say’. When we fail to specify a source of the authority we cannot verify the source, thus the credibility of the argument. Appeals to anonymous sources are more often than not either a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent facts in order to deceive others into accepting a claim.” [Logically Fallacious]

But to the highlighted let's rewrite it to show how dumb this statement is.
Your statement.
So far it's pretty sure that what we observe [the universe] is not eternal. But of course, we don't know that about the universe we don't observe.
=
So far it's pretty sure that what we observe [the ocean] is wet. But of course, we don't know that about the ocean we don't observe.

Question - how do these 'scientist and astronomers' determine what is an eternal and non eternal universe?

I think so. It is prudent to base conclusions on what we know rather than speculate on what we don't know. We know that the observed universe is the product of the Big Bang. Since we know of nothing "before" that, then I say assume there was nothing until we have evidence to conclude otherwise.

Really? Only when it suites you. Notice the hypocrisy, duplicity and dishonesty.
Fact =everything that came into existence owes its existence to something else.
But it cannot apply to the universe, so you pull this 'observable universe' baloney as an excuse.
I have never heard any of the known authorities on this subject such as Carl Sagan espouse the baloney you are inventing here.

That's a poor analogy because we've essentially seen all of the Amazon jungle. But of course if there was an unobserved Amazon, then we wouldn't know how climate change has affected it.

You miss the point again. Global warming [the myth] affects the Amazon as a whole, impossible to only affect what is observed regardless if we observed every nook and cranny found in the Amazon. Same applies to your non-sense. Either the universe came into existence as a whole or not.
And the hypocrisy of claiming science when you disagree with science. Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and the galaxies are growing farther and father apart. Why? Because the Big Bang occurred as a point of singularity that continues to expand. Either that point of singularity was eternal or began to exist. And if it began to exists it owes its existence to something else.

The existence of our forms was largely determined by recently inherited traits, but of course the matter that makes up our substance is billions of years old.

Red herring. How do you know the highlighted is true? Because X scientist said so?

I posted that essentially everything in this world owes the existence of its form to something else, so I'm not denying that all forms have been based on other, earlier forms. Can you name one thing whose substance came into being from something else? I don't know of any examples.

Substance =more atheist evolutionary terms.
Use terms found in nature. Is it DNA, cells, atoms, tissue, electrolytes, etc.?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You either claim omniscience and state that nowhere in the universe Y caused X. Or you prove that Y did not cause X using positive evidence.

You just need to know that Y cannot create to know that Y didn't create X. Omniscience is not necessary.

Homework Question: How do we know that Mickey Mouse did not create the universe?

Similar to the example of Santa Claus that I gave you. I don't prove the nonexistence of Santa Claus by claiming that he is a myth, but by showing that there is no toy factory at the north pole, no sleigh on the radar on 24 of December, I ate the cookies I drank the milk, I brought the toys.

If you want to convince me that Santa exists, and I respond saying that he's a myth, then that would be your problem, not mine.

That’s how you prove your point, waving your hand and saying it’s a myth is both dishonest and lazy.

Waving away your beliefs as myths can also result from my thinking my time is better spent on more important matters.

I find it rather amusing that you appeal to education and continue to commit this elementary fallacy. Why? Any person with an eight grade education can figure out the fallacy and stop.

Fallacy of Anonymous Authority.
“When an unspecified sources use as evidence for the claim. This is commonly indicated by the phrases such as “they said, that it has been said, I heard that, studies show’ or generalize groups such as ‘scientists say’. When we fail to specify a source of the authority we cannot verify the source, thus the credibility of the argument. Appeals to anonymous sources are more often than not either a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent facts in order to deceive others into accepting a claim.” [Logically Fallacious]

But to the highlighted let's rewrite it to show how dumb this statement is.
Your statement.
So far it's pretty sure that what we observe [the universe] is not eternal. But of course, we don't know that about the universe we don't observe.
=
So far it's pretty sure that what we observe [the ocean] is wet. But of course, we don't know that about the ocean we don't observe.

I'm not clear where I went wrong. Why can't an eternal universe contain things that are not eternal?

Question - how do these 'scientist and astronomers' determine what is an eternal and non eternal universe?

I don't know. If you really want to know, then look it up.

Really? Only when it suites you. Notice the hypocrisy, duplicity and dishonesty.

I didn't notice that.

Fact =everything that came into existence owes its existence to something else.
But it cannot apply to the universe, so you pull this 'observable universe' baloney as an excuse.

I'd say the universe "owes its existence" to itself.

I have never heard any of the known authorities on this subject such as Carl Sagan espouse the baloney you are inventing here.

Then by all means read Carl Sagan's books. Cosmos is a good place to start.

You miss the point again. Global warming [the myth] affects the Amazon as a whole, impossible to only affect what is observed regardless if we observed every nook and cranny found in the Amazon. Same applies to your non-sense. Either the universe came into existence as a whole or not.

That's possible. Stephen Hawking wrote that the universe created itself out of nothing.

And the hypocrisy of claiming science when you disagree with science. Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and the galaxies are growing farther and father apart. Why? Because the Big Bang occurred as a point of singularity that continues to expand. Either that point of singularity was eternal or began to exist. And if it began to exists it owes its existence to something else.

The singularity might have come from another universe. About a year ago I read an article in Scientific American written by some scientists who say the universe may have come from a four-dimensional star in another universe.

Red herring. How do you know the highlighted is true? Because X scientist said so?

I thought it was common knowledge that the atoms in our bodies are billions of years old. Do you disagree?

Substance =more atheist evolutionary terms.

Since when is substance an "atheist evolutionary term"?

Use terms found in nature. Is it DNA, cells, atoms, tissue, electrolytes, etc.?

I don't know what "terms found in nature" is referring to. Your sentence structure can be difficult to follow.

 

[Towerwatchman]

You just need to know that Y cannot create to know that Y didn't create X. Omniscience is not necessary.

In science its not what you believe, it's what you can prove. Now prove that God cannot create.

Homework Question: How do we know that Mickey Mouse did not create the universe?

Because we have positive evidence that Disney created the character.

If you want to convince me that Santa exists, and I respond saying that he's a myth, then that would be your problem, not mine.
Waving away your beliefs as myths can also result from my thinking my time is better spent on more important matters.

So when we were discussing the complex and specified information that exist within DNA , and my claim, based on everyday experiences, that complex and specified information can only come from intelligence, you decided to wave away because you have better things to do? Like argue ambiguous, unprovable fairy tales, such as a temporal universe existing within an eternal universe, which we have zero evidence for.

But don't take it from me. Let's see what the man who co-discovered DNA has to say.

Francis Crick co discover of DNA.

“The Sequence Hypothesis

This has already been referred to a number of times. In its simplest form it assumes that the specificity of a piece of nucleic acid is expressed solely by the sequence of its bases, and that this sequence is a (simple) code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein. This hypothesis appears to be rather widely held. Its virtue is that it unites several remarkable pairs of generalizations : the central biochemical importance of proteins and the dominating biological role of genes, and in particular of their nucleic acid ; the linearity of protein molecules (considered covalently) and the genetic linearity within the functional gene, as shown by the work of Benzer (1957) and Pontecorvo (this Symposium); the simplicity of the composition of protein molecules and the simplicity of the nucleic acids. Work is actively proceeding in several laboratories, including our own, in an attempt to provide more direct evidence for this hypothesis.

Hint.= He is stating that DNA contains complex and specified information.

That's one scientist.

I'm not clear where I went wrong. Why can't an eternal universe contain things that are not eternal?

First be honest. That was not your argument. Now you define 'the observable universe' as 'things'.
Your post.
So far it's pretty sure that what we observe [the universe] is not eternal. But of course, we don't know that about the universe we don't observe.
This is wrong in so many ways.

The second law of thermodynamics state that within a close system, things tend towards increasing disorder. Given sufficient time everything in the universe would grind down to a state of maximum disorder. If the universe has always existed, why do we not find ourselves in a maximum thermo dynamic disordered state?

Answer . The universe had a beginning, began in a low entropy state and the thermo dynamic clock has been running since and has not reached equilibrium. The second Law of Thermodynamics prove matter and energy are not eternal but had a beginning.

But don't take my word for it.

The Beginning of Time. A Lecture by Stephen Hawking.

"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted… But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature… The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."
That is two scientist.

I don't know. If you really want to know, then look it up.

You don't know? Really? After Oral Roberts I would expect you to test everything before believing in it. Seems you did not learn your lesson.

I'd say the universe "owes its existence" to itself.

You are clueless to the basics.
Let’s keep it simple, cause and effect, = what is found in the effect is always found in cause. You cannot give what you do not have. Life can only come from life. Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot arise from nonlife but still Darwinist and Atheist insist that it happened but have no evidence for it.
You owe your existence to your parents. You have life because you parents were the cause. They have life to give.
Back to this whopper. How does a non existing universe bring itself into existence? How does something come from nothing.

BTW that is three scientist.

Then by all means read Carl Sagan's books. Cosmos is a good place to start.

That's possible. Stephen Hawking wrote that the universe created itself out of nothing.

Really? Seems Hawking disagrees with you.

The singularity might have come from another universe. About a year ago I read an article in Scientific American written by some scientists who say the universe may have come from a four-dimensional star in another universe.

The multiverse.
Rather interesting the atheist argue that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God, and then present a hypothesis that has zero evidence. We call that lack of consistency.
But let's continue.

Look around everything you see is temporal. Everything you see owes its existence to something prior. Every cause and effect from the beginning of the universe till now is temporal. Temporal causes bring about temporal effects. The effect is there [the universe] where is the cause?

Same logic applies to timeless cause, they bring about timeless effects. [Everything mention up to now is non cognitive]. For a timeless cause to bring about a temporal effect, it had to be a choice made by the timeless cause. [Cognition and free will.] If the timeless cause was non cognitive the effect will be timeless also. But the universe is temporal. What or who is the cause?

I thought it was common knowledge that the atoms in our bodies are billions of years old. Do you disagree?

Prove it.

Since when is substance an "atheist evolutionary term"?

I don't know what "terms found in nature" is referring to. Your sentence structure can be difficult to follow.

Atheist and Evolutionist use general and ambiguous terms. True science uses terms found in nature.


When it comes to height what betters serves? Using tall or measurements in feet/ inches/ cm

When it comes to volume what better serves? Using big or volume in cubic feet]

When it comes to distance what better serves? Using far or distance in feet, meters, miles, or kilometers.

When it comes to time what better serves? "Over a large amount of time" or time measured in minutes, hours, days, years.

When it comes to temperature what is better? "Hot, very hot, cold, very cold or measured in * F, *C

When it comes to weight what better serves? "Heavy, very heavy, light" or measured in lb or kg

When it comes to microorganisms what better serves? Bacteria, germs, virus or MRSA, ECOLI, COVID19


BTW, notice that you have a deity also. My God ‘YHWH’ is an eternal being that created the universe from nothing by His power. Your deity which was named around 1900 ‘the multiverse’ is eternal, and creates universes out of nothing, by nothing, from nothing. Let’s throw miracles into the equation. I believe that Jesus turned water into wine, made the blind see, and the lame walk. You believe in miracles also, universes popping into existence by nothing from nothing, and life arising from non life.

You have way more faith than I do. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist or an evolutionist.

 

[El Cid]

The mind can change the physical structure of the brain. If the mind is totally a product of the brain, then it is unlikely such a thing could occur.

I'm not sure what you're referring to,

Science has confirmed that thoughts can change the physical structure of the brain. This is evidence that the mind and thoughts are nonphysical and transcend the brain.

but the best evidence that the mind is produced by the brain is that changing the brain changes the mind. So it appears that there is no part of the consciousness that can survive death, and I love it! That way there is no damnation, and all those "warnings" from Christians is just a lot of obnoxious hot air.

It could be that damaging the brain is like a damaged keyboard to the operator of a computer. With the mind being the operator. If most of my keys were damaged you would think I was brain damaged because typing on a damaged computer keyboard looks like nonsense but my mind would behaving completely normally.

Yes, but we can measure energy. We cannot measure the mind. That proves energy is physical, but the mind is not.

We can measure the brain, and since that's all there is to the mind, then your point is moot.

No, see above.

Actually they have.

No. NDEs have never been proved to be anything more than hallucinations.

No, some NDEs have given people information that they could only have obtained by leaving their bodies.

But they have and it has been confirmed in many accounts.

More hot air.

You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and live in your own reality but you may be sorry.

If you want to win the argument you do.

As long as Christians want to cheat death, then they will argue that they can live on.

Christians believe that we deserve death because of our sin.

God's consciouness didnt have a beginning, all others do.

And how do you know God's consciousness never began?

He has revealed to us that He is eternal.

True but they are personal beings and persons can only come from the personal.

Actually, we know that people are created by a natural process. There's no magic involved.

A process that must be initiated by persons not a random impersonal process.

We dont know exactly but because of our sin the natural world became cursed in its relationship to humans.

Sin doesn't cause cancer--there's no causal link between the two. Cancer results from cells. If God created cells, then he created cancer.

But the cells are malfunctioning, what caused them to malfunction? Some cancers are directly caused by sin, such as smoking and vaginal cancer.

We dont know exactly but see above.

If God exists then he created rats and the diseases they carry.

Not the diseases they carry. They are the result of the curse of sin.

Because there is evidence that our dimension of time had a beginning, ie study the Big Bang.

But how did the Big Bang cause time?

We dont know.

Loewe, L., 2006 Quantifying the genome decay paradox due to Mullers ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetic Research 87:133-159. To name one.

Here's the abstract:

The observation of high mitochondrial mutation rates in human pedigrees has led to the question of how such an asexual genetic system can survive the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations caused by Muller's ratchet. I define a null model to quantify in unprecedented detail the threat from extinction caused by Muller's ratchet. This model is general enough to explore the biological significance of Muller's ratchet in various species where its operation has been suspected. For increased precision over a wide range of parameter space I employ individual-based simulations run by evolution@home, the first global computing system for evolutionary biology. After compiling realistic values for the key parameters in human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) I find that a surprisingly large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations would lead to the extinction of the human line over a period of 20 million years - if accepted wisdom about mtDNA and Muller's ratchet is correct. The resulting genomic decay paradox complements a similar threat from extinction due to mutation accumulation in nuclear DNA and suggests evaluation of unconventional explanations for long-term persistence. A substantial list of potential solutions is given, including compensatory back mutations, mutation rate heterogeneity and occasional recombination in mtDNA. Future work will have to explore which of these actually solves the paradox. Nonetheless, the results presented here provide yet another reason to minimize anthropogenic increase of mutation rates.

So how does this argue against evolution?

Read the bold statement the mutation rates are so high that humans will go extinct in less than 20 million years probably much less since that is just the mitochondrial mutations. He says that there is also a very high rate of nuclear DNA decay. And since we have already been in existence around 2 million years we will die and not evolve.

You obviously dont understand logic, logic doesnt rule out accidents.

That's a logical fallacy of your own. I never argued that logic rules out accidents. I was demonstrating that your claim that scientific discoveries are not accidental is false.

I never made such a claim.

Logic is how they understand what they discover irrespective if the discovery was accidental or not.

Sure. Who said otherwise?

You seemed to be making that argument.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Science has confirmed that thoughts can change the physical structure of the brain.

Apparently, yes; that is true.

This is evidence that the mind and thoughts are nonphysical and transcend the brain.

Actually, thoughts are physical in their nature because they are electro-chemical.

It could be that damaging the brain is like a damaged keyboard to the operator of a computer. With the mind being the operator. If most of my keys were damaged you would think I was brain damaged because typing on a damaged computer keyboard looks like nonsense...

I don't think it's possible for an immaterial mind to press keys on a board. That's where your analogy fails: You are as physical as your keyboard is. And because of that fact, your analogy doesn't fit because you claim that the mind is immaterial.

...but my mind would behaving completely normally.

How could you possibly know that?

No, some NDEs have given people information that they could only have obtained by leaving their bodies.

The reason I'm so skeptical about these claims is that although people are presumably out of their bodies, they're still able to see. But how can they see if they've left their eyes along with their bodies behind?

Whoops--forgot about that one!

You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and live in your own reality...

Sure, I can do that, and all you can do is complain. LOL

...but you may be sorry.

You're implying a threat of some kind here. So it's believe what I say or go down. But as I see it, I'm much more likely to regret believing you. I already made that mistake with other Christians.

Christians believe that we deserve death because of our sin.

I deserve great rewards for the way I've lived my life.

He has revealed to us that He is eternal.

Am I supposed to believe this when he can't reveal to most Christians how to use proper English or how to be civil?

A process that must be initiated by persons not a random impersonal process.

Sure. Physical people screw to have babies; no Gods are involved.

But the cells are malfunctioning, what caused them to malfunction? Some cancers are directly caused by sin, such as smoking and vaginal cancer.

"Sinless" people get cancer too. Cancer is a blind process from nature that does not discriminate.

Not the diseases they carry. They are the result of the curse of sin.

How does sin cause disease?

Speaking of sin, I just got done being reviled by two of your compatriots. You should tell them to knock it off

 

[El Cid]

How does logic tell you dishonesty is wrong?

I should qualify that dishonesty can be morally wrong if it is used to harm innocent people. Logically lying to harm innocent people does harm to society which is unreasonable. See how easy that is? There's no need for any God to dictate morality to us. We can figure it out on our own.

What do you consider harm? What do you consider innocent people? Are unborn people innocent? Why should we care whether something does harm to society? Human society is only good for humans, there is nothing objectively special about human society if there is no God.

Well he is wrong about Christianity, because Christianity and Christians contributed to almost everything good about Western civilization.

What good have you contributed to society?

I have tutored underprivileged kids to help them with their schooling. Do you consider that a good?

 

[Our Lord's God]

I have tutored underprivileged kids to help them with their schooling. Do you consider that a good?

How about killing a man for collecting twigs on Saturday?

Is that good?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Unknown Soldier:
I should qualify that dishonesty can be morally wrong if it is used to harm innocent people. Logically lying to harm innocent people does harm to society which is unreasonable. See how easy that is? There's no need for any God to dictate morality to us. We can figure it out on our own.

What do you consider harm? What do you consider innocent people?

Why ask questions with obvious answers? Like I just posted, we can figure out on our own what harm is and who innocent people are. In fact, we've done just that all along. You're making morality more complicated than it is to slip your God into the mix.

Are unborn people innocent?

Yes.

Why should we care whether something does harm to society?

Obviously I care what harm comes to society because I live in society. It's that simple. I understand you want me to have trouble answering that question so you can slip God in as a way to safeguard society. But theism never worked to safeguard society.

Human society is only good for humans, there is nothing objectively special about human society if there is no God.

As long as I like society, then that's good enough for me. Belief in God is irrelevant as long as the religious do no harm.

I have tutored underprivileged kids to help them with their schooling. Do you consider that a good?

Yes. And you don't need God to tutor. I never did need God when I tutored.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How about killing a man for collecting twigs on Saturday?

Is that good?

Yes. The murder account from Numbers 15. El Cid must call it good not because his morality is objective or based on reason but because he must bow to his beliefs regardless of the moral consequences. He thinks doing so is his ticket to heaven.

That's the sad thing about religion. People are so bent on living in an imaginary heaven that they never really live this one true life here on earth.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Yes. The murder account from Numbers 15. El Cid must call it good not because his morality is objective or based on reason but because he must bow to his beliefs regardless of the moral consequences. He thinks doing so is his ticket to heaven.

That's the sad thing about religion. People are so bent on living in an imaginary heaven that they never really live this one true life here on earth.

And Jesus was walking with Peter and John, and it was the Sabbath, and Peter saw a man gathering twigs. And Peter cometh to Jesus and sayeth, "Lord, behold that man over yonder gathereth twigs and yea it is the Sabbath. What shall we doeth with him?"

And Jesus answereth, "Goeth now and stone him to death. He must be executed."

Why doesn't that fit? According to most of churchianity, that's what God the Son commanded the Israelites to do in the Old Testament.

And everyone thought Marcion was dismissed into obscurity 1900 years ago yet not a single soul has ever satisfactorily addressed his observations.

 

[El Cid]

Everyone has predispositions toward their beliefs, including atheists. But only for Christians is objectivity commanded by God.

All Christians disobey the Bible's injunctions. I know you do. I think that Christians don't really believe in God and salvation. They just hope there's a God to save them from the grave.

Yes, all Christians disobey God sometimes. Actually once you become a mature Christian you dont really care as much about the afterlife, rather you love your relationship with God in this life and heaven is just the icing on the cake.

Most religions DO make people feel good, and that is evidence they are probably man made.

Why? Does God make people feel bad?

Yes, sometimes because He convicts you of your sin and you feel guilty about it until you repent.

Huh? Christ has taught internal sins from the beginning. Ever heard of Hate, Lust, and pride, as I stated above and etc.?

Yes. You are right. Orwell didn't invent thought crime; Jesus did.

Christ didnt say they were crimes, just sins. While there is overlap between sins and crimes, they are not the same thing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes, all Christians disobey God sometimes.

I'd say they disobey the Bible all the time.

Actually once you become a mature Christian you dont really care as much about the afterlife, rather you love your relationship with God in this life and heaven is just the icing on the cake.

I've often wondered if anybody would adopt a religion without being offered rewards for doing so. Jesus offered rewards to entice potential followers. I don't know off the top of my head if a relationship with God was on his list of offerings. Personally, such an offer doesn't appeal to me especially if it's anything like the supposed relationship with God Christians say they have. Being angry and hating people is not high on my list of priorities.

Yes, sometimes because He convicts you of your sin and you feel guilty about it until you repent.

I'm actually pretty good at knowing when I've gone morally wrong which is very rare. So what sin does God convict you of? What are the sins committed by Christians in general? It appears that sexual abuse and money scams are very popular sins among Christians. Also, repentance does follow conviction--conviction by a court of law. God's conviction should come first and early enough to avoid that kind of a mess, but we all know it often fails to work that way.

Christ didnt say they were crimes, just sins.

I always thought they are essentially the same.

While there is overlap between sins and crimes, they are not the same thing.

So are there some crimes that aren't sins? If so, then I presume you think you can commit those crimes without sinning.

 

[El Cid]

Do they ever find what is morally and factually right and where is it?

Obviously yes, if you sincerely seek truth, then you might find it although success is never guaranteed. Truth can be anything that you may or may not like, and it isn't always what you expect or what makes sense to you. Truth is often discovered as a result of much time and effort. I say let reality dictate to you what it is and not you dictate to reality what you want it to be. You need to look with "open eyes" and a clean slate for truth seeing whatever it presents to you.

Hey we agree on something.

Where do those truths and tenets exist?

You need to discover where they exist. Your discovery involves observation and testing often repeatedly and often with others to check if they make the same discoveries that you do.

Some people dont want to hear the truth and cant handle it because of their preconceived ideas.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves dont you think?

Sure, and if Jesus was the Son of God, then the apostles would have had no need for swords. Don't you see the conflict with men following a presumed pacifist while armed with deadly weapons they were willing to use?

Why would they have no need for swords? Jesus was not a pacifist.

What if the law system was acting unjustly and there was no legal recourse?

In that case I would be out of luck. I could not stop the unjust arrest.

You might could if you fought them with a weapon.

Some people take longer to learn things like that. Especially if they have a tendency to be hot tempered.

So Jesus was unable to change his apostles for the better. We've seen that failure to this day.

No, but because He cannot interfere with their free will, it may not happen immediately. Most of the time it takes time for us to change.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Unknown Soldier:
Obviously yes, if you sincerely seek truth, then you might find it although success is never guaranteed. Truth can be anything that you may or may not like, and it isn't always what you expect or what makes sense to you. Truth is often discovered as a result of much time and effort. I say let reality dictate to you what it is and not you dictate to reality what you want it to be. You need to look with "open eyes" and a clean slate for truth seeing whatever it presents to you.

Hey we agree on something.

You may be very unique as a Christian, then. As far as I know the Bible doesn't advise this kind of critical thinking. Where does the Bible tell us to freely come to conclusions based on logic and reasoning? Instead it demands that we either believe what it says or perish in hell.

Some people dont want to hear the truth and cant handle it because of their preconceived ideas.

And I submit that such people don't rely on logic and evidence like I do. Some people believe what they do because they hope they will be rewarded for their belief.

Why would they have no need for swords? Jesus was not a pacifist.

OK. So we agree that Jesus encouraged violence in his followers as long as being violent stood a chance of winning. So getting back to my earlier point that you jumped over, a true Son of God would be invulnerable and have no need for armed followers. This is but one of many logical conflicts we see in the Bible that most Christians are blind to. We can easily reconcile these paradoxes by dispensing our beliefs of God and magic. Then it all makes sense: We are told that Jesus had armed followers because the story of those followers along with Jesus himself are the products of the imperfect human imagination. The Gospel writers simply failed to see the theological inconsistencies in their stories.

You might could if you fought them with a weapon.

It would obviously be foolish to fight the police especially with a weapon. If you don't like the legal system, then there are legal ways to have the laws changed. In the real world, there are no magic men to heal the wounds we inflict on those with authority to arrest us.

No, but because He cannot interfere with their free will...

Based on what I've read in the Gospel stories, Jesus had no concept of free will. He routinely issued commands to his followers to obey God's presumed will rather then their own wills.

...it may not happen immediately. Most of the time it takes time for us to change.

What you've posted here is another example of a logical inconsistency between your own theology and the theology of a perfect God. Your God is limited and hence slow. Gods that people make are like your God.

 

[El Cid]

Fraid so, the Big Bang.

Apologists love the Big Bang because we don't completely understand it. Apologists then have a convenient gap of ignorance to stuff God into as a placeholder hoping that our ignorance will continue. Generally, claims like this of God and his miracles tend to put them into situations that are remote in space and time. Like in Star Wars, they are a long time ago and far, far away. As such, they are hard to check out and therefore relatively safe from scrutiny. That way many people can cling to those beliefs knowing that at least they are not proved false which keeps hope alive.

We do understand that the laws of physics breakdown at the BB, which implies something supernatural. There are many documented miracle claims in the present day as well.

And like I've said, I'm confident that there is a physical basis to the Big Bang. There's nothing personal about the cosmos today, so why be so foolish as to think it ever was personal?

The cosmos contains personal beings (us), and we know that persons only come from the personal. Also, purposes exist in the universe and we know that only persons can create purposes. Such as eyes are for seeing and ears are for hearing and etc.

Because He doesnt have a beginning.

And how do you know that God has no beginning? That's very presumptuous considering that we have no records of your God going back only three thousand years or so.

He has told us in His word.

Christianity inspired one of the best revolutions in human history, the American Revolution. It has brought greater good than any other revolution.

Did you ever hear of Thomas Paine and his work The Age of Reason? Thomas Paine "sparked" the American Revolution, and he wrote that he detested the Christian religion.

If you read his book Common Sense, he quotes the Bible multiple times to justify the Revolution. Most of the founders turned against him after he wrote that second book. Only one person showed up at his funeral because of that. And England called the American Revolution, the Presbyterian Revolution. Why do you think that is?

But there was no doubt some influence from Christianity on the American Revolution. I think that the founders condoning slavery resulted largely from the Bible.

Actually several were against slavery including Washington and Jefferson. Washington was going to free the slaves as soon as he was elected president, but his advisors told him not to because the major economic damage it would do. BTW, contrary to popular belief the Bible does not condone involuntary slavery.

Actually you are the one that seems to be feeling unloved.

Oh? Have you been reading some of the posts directed at me? So yes, I'm definitely feeling unloved which comes as no surprise to me. Note, though, that I'm not crying about any of it. I just continue to argue for truth, goodness, and reason.

On another thread you seem to be complaining about it. But I agree that some people on this site have not treated you well. But if there is no God then truth, goodness and reason dont actually exist.

90% of Christians dont exhibit anitisocial behavior.

Then the other 10 percent are on this board!

In fact, Christians that attend church on a regular basis are happier and live longer than people who dont go to church regularly.

Maybe, but think of all the money we non-church-goers save staying home.

Well then why are you always begging for money?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We do understand that the laws of physics breakdown at the BB...

Then the universe can obviously be physically different from the cosmos we observe. Some scientists have done work that indicates that our universe came from a four-dimensional star in another universe. A universe with four spatial dimensions would explain that "breakdown of the known laws of physics" you mention.

...which implies something supernatural.

If by "supernatural" you mean a nature that differs from what we experience, then I agree with you.

There are many documented miracle claims in the present day as well.

Oh sure--we have a gazillion miracle claims. Not one miracle, but many, many claims.

The cosmos contains personal beings (us), and we know that persons only come from the personal.

We know that people come from people via a natural process.

Also, purposes exist in the universe and we know that only persons can create purposes. Such as eyes are for seeing and ears are for hearing and etc.

Eyes and ears evolved because organisms with sight and hearing have survival advantages over blind and deaf organisms.

He has told us in His word.

You know full well that I don't believe the Bible is anything more than a human document.

If you read his book Common Sense, he quotes the Bible multiple times to justify the Revolution. Most of the founders turned against him after he wrote that second book. Only one person showed up at his funeral because of that.

People tend to harm the prophets, do they not? Telling the truth is not always a good way to win friends.

And England called the American Revolution, the Presbyterian Revolution. Why do you think that is?

I suppose it's based in the hatred and violence that attends religion.

Actually several were against slavery including Washington and Jefferson. Washington was going to free the slaves as soon as he was elected president, but his advisors told him not to because the major economic damage it would do.

I understand that the Bible was used as a justification for slavery prior to abolution.

BTW, contrary to popular belief the Bible does not condone involuntary slavery.

Oh but the Bible does condone slavery. I've read it.

On another thread you seem to be complaining about it.

OK, yes, I must concede that I have my limits to how much ignorance I can take but notice I'm still here fighting the good fight.

But I agree that some people on this site have not treated you well.

Those "some people" are your fellow Christians.

But if there is no God then truth, goodness and reason dont actually exist.

Truth, goodness, and reason are obvious. Gods are not so evident. Who needs them?

Well then why are you always begging for money?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I hope you can see how silly it is for anybody to posit a God on one's side and then rely on money.

 

[El Cid]

cience has confirmed that thoughts can change the physical structure of the brain.

Apparently, yes; that is true.

This is evidence that the mind and thoughts are nonphysical and transcend the brain.

Actually, thoughts are physical in their nature because they are electro-chemical.

Ok show me a picture of the belief or thought that God does not exist.

It could be that damaging the brain is like a damaged keyboard to the operator of a computer. With the mind being the operator. If most of my keys were damaged you would think I was brain damaged because typing on a damaged computer keyboard looks like nonsense...

I don't think it's possible for an immaterial mind to press keys on a board. That's where your analogy fails: You are as physical as your keyboard is. And because of that fact, your analogy doesn't fit because you claim that the mind is immaterial.

The mind would be interacting with the brain not a keyboard. I am still waiting for a picture of a mind or a slice of mind.

...but my mind would behaving completely normally.

How could you possibly know that?

Because I am a normal person, without God you dont even know what normal is.

No, some NDEs have given people information that they could only have obtained by leaving their bodies.

The reason I'm so skeptical about these claims is that although people are presumably out of their bodies, they're still able to see. But how can they see if they've left their eyes along with their bodies behind?

That is part of the mystery.

Whoops--forgot about that one!

You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and live in your own reality...

Sure, I can do that, and all you can do is complain. LOL

I am not complaining, just stating a fact.

...but you may be sorry.

You're implying a threat of some kind here. So it's believe what I say or go down. But as I see it, I'm much more likely to regret believing you. I already made that mistake with other Christians.

No, not a threat just stating a possible fact.

Christians believe that we deserve death because of our sin.

I deserve great rewards for the way I've lived my life.

What kind of reward? Money?

He has revealed to us that He is eternal.

Am I supposed to believe this when he can't reveal to most Christians how to use proper English or how to be civil?

Studies have shown that devout Christians are the most civil people.

A process that must be initiated by persons not a random impersonal process.

Sure. Physical people screw to have babies; no Gods are involved.

Without persons you cant have babies. You also cannot have personal relationships or personal communication.

But the cells are malfunctioning, what caused them to malfunction? Some cancers are directly caused by sin, such as smoking and vaginal cancer.

"Sinless" people get cancer too. Cancer is a blind process from nature that does not discriminate.

Yes, but generally they dont have cancers related to sinful behavior.

Not the diseases they carry. They are the result of the curse of sin.

How does sin cause disease?

Sometimes just like any other disease, see above.

Speaking of sin, I just got done being reviled by two of your compatriots. You should tell them to knock it off

I dont know who they are.

 

[El Cid]

How about killing a man for collecting twigs on Saturday?

Is that good?

It was not good, it is never good for someone to die, but it was a just act under the old covenant when conducted by the proper authorities. Under the Old covenant the ancient hebrew theocracy was held to a higher standard as Gods representatives on earth. God did not want any sabbath breakers living in the nation. The nation had to be pure in action. But under the new covenant Christ brought grace and forgiveness so that sabbath breaking was no longer a capital crime and if you ask for forgiveness you remain part of new representatives of God on earth, the Church.