Is there a Christian cosmology that doesn't include miracles?

[Stuu]

Far more of them can be answered simply than people think.

Ironic that I phrase it that way because the fact that people do not think is precisely the reason that things that ought to be simple turn into convoluted knots of confusion and stupidity.

God is real and as such He is not contradictory nor can He do the irrational. Your example is rather esoteric but it applies to regular, more meaningful, ideas as well. He cannot, for example, go to a place that does not exist (like the past or future). He cannot know the unknowable, He cannot be free and predestined, He cannot be timeless and endure forever, He cannot be immutable and become a man or die or rise from the dead, He cannot be just and ignore sin, He cannot be loving and ignore the best interests of others, etc, etc.

If people would do nothing else other than constrain their minds to the rational and aggressively reject the irrational, they would not only understand who God is but would live righteous lives that are not only in harmony with reality but with their family, friends and neighbors. Do you live a life of stress, hardship, heartache and misery? It is because you and / or those around you are living lives that attempt to either ignore reality or actively fight against it.

We are rational beings and the chief aim of our existence is happiness and the only way a rational being can be happy (i.e. joyful, fulfilled, balanced, healthy, etc) is for him to be rational. God, Who is Himself the very embodiment of reason and we, being created in His image, are rational creatures and as such cannot be happy, fulfilled and joyful if we don't both acknowledge God's existence and make Him the center of our lives. Knowing that God is Living, Personal, Holy, Just, and Loving and that He desperately desires to not only be the captain of your soul but our Father and Friend, is nothing more than conforming your mind to reality.
.

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.​

I appreciate your justification of your 'no'! I couldn't argue against your wishes for your own life, which seem entirely reasonable. I think for me though, it would be irrational to believe in one or more gods, and I would suffer the kind of cognitive dissonance you describe were I to do that. My objectives are more about discovery, to the extent I have any ability to do that.

Perhaps you can dissuade me from this view, but I see the Judeo-christian game of golf as being one where you are driven in a cart straight to the last hole and told you have just played the perfect round. You were brilliant, scoring mostly holes-in-one, and you are a winner. If you accept this even though it's not your lived experience, there will be a pleasant beverage and pleasant company in the clubhouse for an unlimited time. But if you question whether this really happened, you will be dumped off the cart into a ditch full of poison.

I'd rather play the round for myself. There won't be miraculous holes-in-one. It will be a long walk, perhaps in an electrical storm. I will spend much of my time hitting out of bunkers, only to have the ball roll back down to my feet. The ball will occasionally go into the right hole, and those 18 events will be amazing. And I will come to know the course properly, and especially to understand much better my place within the world of golf.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

I appreciate your justification of your 'no'! I couldn't argue against your wishes for your own life, which seem entirely reasonable. I think for me though, it would be irrational to believe in one or more gods, and I would suffer the kind of cognitive dissonance you describe were I to do that. My objectives are more about discovery, to the extent I have any ability to do that.

The fact the you have any ability to do that at all is proof that God must exist! The result cannot be greater than the cause.

What is it that you need in order to be convinced that something is true?

Perhaps you can dissuade me from this view, but I see the Judeo-christian game of golf as being one where you are driven in a cart straight to the last hole and told you have just played the perfect round. You were brilliant, scoring mostly holes-in-one, and you are a winner. If you accept this even though it's not your lived experience, there will be a pleasant beverage and pleasant company in the clubhouse for an unlimited time. But if you question whether this really happened, you will be dumped off the cart into a ditch full of poison.

That's utterly complete nonsense!

Who taught you this?

This is not anything remotely similar to what BIBLICAL Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that we don't even have a single golf club in our bag, that we are blind and can't even find our way to the course and wouldn't be able to see which direction the hole was from the tee anyhow.

I'd rather play the round for myself. There won't be miraculous holes-in-one. It will be a long walk, perhaps in an electrical storm. I will spend much of my time hitting out of bunkers, only to have the ball roll back down to my feet. The ball will occasionally go into the right hole, and those 18 events will be amazing. And I will come to know the course properly, and especially to understand much better my place within the world of golf.

Stuart

Well, the problem is that missing the mark is fatal. The word "sin" literally means to "miss the mark" and any sin disqualifies you to be in God's holy (i.e. perfect) presence. So, one bogey and you lose. Anything short of the perfect game, however that's defined in golf, and you're disqualified for the prize no matter how well the rest of your game happens to be.

I'm not sure how else to use the golf analogy and so let me just talk straight...

Christianity is all about justice! If you think otherwise, you've been misinformed, if not outright lied too. Given the severity of your misconception, I'd suspect the later but regardless, if you're going to reject something as significant and profound as Christianity, you ought to do so based on what it actually teaches.

To be clear, I should say that there are lots of people who call themselves Christian who reject the idea that Jesus' death as a penal substitution for the punishment we deserve but take a moment to notice the one's who do so. They are almost universally Christian sects that reject reason in favor of their pet doctrines. Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians don't really care much about whether their doctrines even make any sense, never mind whether they are consistent with what the bible says. They're way more interested in their traditions than in making any effort whatever toward understanding what God was trying to teach through Israel's program of animal sacrifice and how The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is related to the Law or how Christ's death was all about satisfying the demands of justice that the blood of bulls had no more hope of doing than you have of shooting the perfect game of golf. In short, those who reject the idea that Jesus' death was about satisfying justice, aren't doing so because of what the bible teaches but because of what their pastor or priest tells them to believe

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Clete Stuu

​​​​​​​If we're using golf analogies, it would be like trying to play a perfect game where you're starting on earth, and hole one is on a planet at the edge of the universe, hole two is somewhere else in a random direction, hole three in another direction, and so on and so forth to hole 18, but you don't even know where hole one is, let alone the rest of them.

​​​​​​​In other words, it's impossible to get a hole-in-one on the first try, let alone 18 consecutive holes-in-one on that course, but it's even more impossible than that to live a sinless life.

 

[Stuu]

The result cannot be greater than the cause.

Don't underestimate the size of the cause when it comes to stellar evolution and evolution by natural selection. They are both brutally efficient and effective.

What is it that you need in order to be convinced that something is true?

It depends on the claim being defended. Unambiguous evidence is usually convincing for me.

This is not anything remotely similar to what BIBLICAL Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that we don't even have a single golf club in our bag, that we are blind and can't even find our way to the course and wouldn't be able to see which direction the hole was from the tee anyhow.

Well, even more reason not to go with it then.

Well, the problem is that missing the mark is fatal. The word "sin" literally means to "miss the mark" and any sin disqualifies you to be in God's holy (i.e. perfect) presence. So, one bogey and you lose. Anything short of the perfect game, however that's defined in golf, and you're disqualified for the prize no matter how well the rest of your game happens to be.

Well that's exactly my plan.

Christianity is all about justice! If you think otherwise, you've been misinformed, if not outright lied too. Given the severity of your misconception, I'd suspect the later but regardless, if you're going to reject something as significant and profound as Christianity, you ought to do so based on what it actually teaches.

To be clear, I should say that there are lots of people who call themselves Christian who reject the idea that Jesus' death as a penal substitution for the punishment we deserve but take a moment to notice the one's who do so. They are almost universally Christian sects that reject reason in favor of their pet doctrines. Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians don't really care much about whether their doctrines even make any sense, never mind whether they are consistent with what the bible says. They're way more interested in their traditions than in making any effort whatever toward understanding what God was trying to teach through Israel's program of animal sacrifice and how The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is related to the Law or how Christ's death was all about satisfying the demands of justice that the blood of bulls had no more hope of doing than you have of shooting the perfect game of golf. In short, those who reject the idea that Jesus' death was about satisfying justice, aren't doing so because of what the bible teaches but because of what their pastor or priest tells them to believe

And how does any of that help me to discover how the universe really works, or anything about myself or the human condition? I don't need to have the responsibility for my wrongdoing removed from me, it is an inherent part of my humanity. Christianity, in the way you are painting it, seems to be an immoral system of dehumanising people in order to control them.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Yet, what is 'good' logic? I believe you are correct, but again, the other imperializes both 'logic' as if God is "logic" It is a construct, and his/her own prowess accordingly, given bluster or real accomplishment of the subject. We need to trust God both to save us AND to remake us, including our parameters for making sense of things (logic) according to His image. The point I'm trying to make is that your or my logic may not be as well developed as another, or better. God is found by all who seek Him. This side of glory, I'm not seeing 1 John 3:2 fulfillment, lest one assert his/her prowess above another's. I'm a reasonably intelligent man, but don't trust in my prowess, but God and Him alone, if that is worth anything. If not, its all good. I've not else to say on the subject than this perspective. Necessarily in Him, -Lon

I don't know what point you're trying to make. :dunno:

 

[Stripe]

And how does any of that help me to discover how the universe really works, or anything about myself or the human condition?

By telling you how the universe works and the situation you are in (the human condition). :duh:

I don't need to have the responsibility for my wrongdoing removed from me, it is an inherent part of my humanity.

Don't worry. You won't.

Christianity seems to be...

That's because you want to insist that you're happy with who you are.

 

[Clete]

Don't underestimate the size of the cause when it comes to stellar evolution and evolution by natural selection. They are both brutally efficient and effective.

Even hypothetically, there is no possible way for the effect to ever be greater than the cause.

This is fundamental fact of science. Indeed, it is a first principle of science. Science literally does not work at all if the effect can be greater than the cause and virtually every major point of your cosmology implies exactly that. Starting from the big bang right up to today, you literally believe that nothing plus nothing equals everything.

It depends on the claim being defended. Unambiguous evidence is usually convincing for me.

The only thing that depends on the claim is the type of evidence, wouldn't you agree?

Proving that a particular person is guilty of murder requires a particular type of evidence whereas proving the shape of the Earth requires a different kind of evidence and proving the Pythagorean Theorem yet another kind of evidence. What all systems of inquiry have in common is logically sound reason. After all, evidence itself isn't sufficient because the evidence must not only exist but it must be consistent not only with the proposed theory but with the rest of the evidence. As such, when you appeal to evidence you are actually appealing to reason. Your entire worldview, at bottom, is founded upon the veracity of reason. Or, at the very least that is your claim. Agree?

Well, even more reason not to go with it then.

Then why are you doing it?

You probably - almost certainly - meant that its all the more reason not to go with Christianity but that reasoning doesn't follow. You have a severe misunderstanding of what biblical teaching is and when I point out the misunderstanding, if your claim to an allegiance to reason is even remotely true, then that would be a reason not to go with the conclusions based on that misunderstanding, which in this case is the rejection of Christianity and yet, you flip it in your mind and use it as further evidence to do exactly that!

In short, in one sentence,you claim to need evidence and then in the very next sentence you use evidence to conclude the opposite of what the evidence would support. Something tells me that you're not nearly so intellectually honest or consistent as you like to think you are.

Well that's exactly my plan.

What?

This response literally does not make sense to me.

And how does any of that help me to discover how the universe really works, or anything about myself or the human condition? I don't need to have the responsibility for my wrongdoing removed from me, it is an inherent part of my humanity. Christianity, in the way you are painting it, seems to be an immoral system of dehumanizing people in order to control them.

Stuart

WHAT?

Look Stuart, just stop trying to read my mind, okay. You're terrible at it. Really really terrible at it. Worse than that, you don't seem to be thinking clearly either, if you're even thinking at all. There is nothing whatsoever that I said that could allow any rational thought process to bring one to the conclusion that Christianity has anything to do with dehumanizing or controlling anyone. That's some sort of emotional reaction that tells me far more about your "human condition" than it does anything else. As I said in my previous post, if you're going to reject Christianity, why not reject it on the basis of what it actually teaches rather than these meaningless, reactionary, emotional contrivances that bear no resemblance to anything related to Christianity or the bible?

You seem to think that misery, pain, suffering, sin and death is an "inherent part of the human condition" and that's not true. That is the current human condition but it is not inherent. That is, we were not created that way. It is a flaw but not a flaw in design. Its no more inherent than a damaged cam shaft in an engine would be. To think that humans are intended to be immoral, hateful, greedy and in all ways harmful to themselves and those around them is to think that a poorly running engine with a bent cam shaft is supposed to be that way. Christianity is all about fixing the flaw, not ignoring it or worse, outright accepting it as your worldview seems to do.

Clete

 

[Stuu]

By telling you how the universe works and the situation you are in (the human condition).

It's telling you that it is telling you about the human condition. But it's a banana skin with no banana, as usual. It's more of a parasite on the human condition than anything else. If you were offering other intelligent species a book on the human condition, would it be the Judeo-christian scriptures or the complete works of William Shakespeare?

The writer of Macbeth has ambition, treachery and emptiness down perfectly. The writer of Revelation was clearly unhinged.

That's because you want to insist that you're happy with who you are.

I don't think pop psychology is going to rescue an immoral philosophy. Or is it an immoral hobby?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Even hypothetically, there is no possible way for the effect to ever be greater than the cause.

Where did your god come from?

This is fundamental fact of science. Indeed, it is a first principle of science. Science literally does not work at all if the effect can be greater than the cause and virtually every major point of your cosmology implies exactly that. Starting from the big bang right up to today, you literally believe that nothing plus nothing equals everything.

Where did your god come from?

The only thing that depends on the claim is the type of evidence, wouldn't you agree?

What are the different categories of evidence, in your opinion, and how would they share the property of being unambiguous?

Proving that a particular person is guilty of murder requires a particular type of evidence whereas proving the shape of the Earth requires a different kind of evidence and proving the Pythagorean Theorem yet another kind of evidence. What all systems of inquiry have in common is logically sound reason. After all, evidence itself isn't sufficient because the evidence must not only exist but it must be consistent not only with the proposed theory but with the rest of the evidence. As such, when you appeal to evidence you are actually appealing to reason. Your entire worldview, at bottom, is founded upon the veracity of reason. Or, at the very least that is your claim. Agree?

No. I am an empiricist as well as a rationalist. There is no difference between the kind of evidence you collect in your three examples, and little difference in the way logic is applied. You deduce the identity of the murderer and the shape of the earth, and you infer the Pythagorean relationship. You could also prove the relationship mathematically, which is just applying mathematics to the observed geometry on which it is based in the first place. A square is a thing squared, and so on.

The word unambiguous implies that a logical structure already exists, one that is waiting for a logically exclusive piece of evidence capable of a providing a definitive answer to an hypothesis. Do you have such evidence in the case of your god?

You probably - almost certainly - meant that its all the more reason not to go with Christianity but that reasoning doesn't follow. You have a severe misunderstanding of what biblical teaching is and when I point out the misunderstanding, if your claim to an allegiance to reason is even remotely true, then that would be a reason not to go with the conclusions based on that misunderstanding, which in this case is the rejection of Christianity and yet, you flip it in your mind and use it as further evidence to do exactly that!

Christianity demands love on pain of burning in sulfur, and it insists you accept a human sacrifice that removes your responsibility for your wrongdoing, vicarious scapegoating in other words. That's two immoral propositions, both pretty central to biblical teaching. Had I been alive in ancient Palestine I would have felt compelled to try to stop the execution of Jesus.

Notwithstanding your valiant attempts to convince me otherwise, Judeo-christian 'teaching' also strikes me as being a wrong answer to the question of how the universe works and the nature of the human condition. The golf version that has us blind says nothing to me at all. It reads as virtue signalling. Poor christians, it says. See how virtuous we are for all the suffering we do. Well, I would like to stand up for your basic human dignity against such a miserable philosophy.

In short, in one sentence, you claim to need evidence and then in the very next sentence you use evidence to conclude the opposite of what the evidence would support. Something tells me that you're not nearly so intellectually honest or consistent as you like to think you are.

No, you've got me there. Perhaps you could be clearer about which pieces of evidence are which in your construction of a prosecution of my dishonesty.

Stuu: Well that's exactly my plan.

What?

"You're disqualified for the prize no matter how well the rest of your game happens to be" is my plan. I don't actually believe any such 'prize' exists, but if it did it would be completely contradictory to how I value my life.

Look Stuart, just stop trying to read my mind, okay. You're terrible at it. Really really terrible at it. Worse than that, you don't seem to be thinking clearly either, if you're even thinking at all. There is nothing whatsoever that I said that could allow any rational thought process to bring one to the conclusion that Christianity has anything to do with dehumanizing or controlling anyone.

I recommend reading back over what you wrote.

That's some sort of emotional reaction that tells me far more about your "human condition" than it does anything else. As I said in my previous post, if you're going to reject Christianity, why not reject it on the basis of what it actually teaches rather than these meaningless, reactionary, emotional contrivances that bear no resemblance to anything related to Christianity or the bible?

I don't feel it is my fault that there are over 40,000 sufficiently different ways of being a Judeo-christian that they can be called denominations or cults. But I do take it seriously to discover what a person thinks and then not misrepresent them with strawman statements. You aren't really helping me understand your position by just telling me I have you wrong. You will appreciate that my objections do refer to beliefs that are actually held by people who call themselves christians. So perhaps you can justify your responses according to your own interpretations of the scriptures, or whatever else you use to justify. I am certainly happy to reject christianity on your own interpretation, if you wish to explain it to me. Of course it's always possible the power of your argument may convince me otherwise.

You seem to think that misery, pain, suffering, sin and death is an "inherent part of the human condition" and that's not true. That is the current human condition but it is not inherent. That is, we were not created that way. It is a flaw but not a flaw in design. Its no more inherent than a damaged cam shaft in an engine would be. To think that humans are intended to be immoral, hateful, greedy and in all ways harmful to themselves and those around them is to think that a poorly running engine with a bent cam shaft is supposed to be that way. Christianity is all about fixing the flaw, not ignoring it or worse, outright accepting it as your worldview seems to do.

The flaw in this is your assumption that we are designed. That wrong assumption makes all the difference. Like the so-called problem of evil, your belief system has invented a problem that doesn't really exist. You are trying to assign blame where no blame is warranted.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Where did your god come from?

You should answer that one first.

Where did your god come from?

 

[Stuu]

You should answer that one first. Where did your god come from?

Profound.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Profound.

Stuart

Indeed, it is.

 

[Lon]

Where did your god come from?

Some one thing has always existed and is eternal. You've acquiesced Einstein's God.

If only all difficult theological dilemmas could be answered so clearly and simply.

And dangerously.

Stuart

Depends on what one means by 'no.' Rather, my answer is "illogical question.' It is trying to ask a question, in itself, that contradicts itself. Its not a logical question (demonstrably if need be).

 

[Stripe]

It's telling you that it is telling you about the human condition. But it's a banana skin with no banana, as usual. It's more of a parasite on the human condition than anything else. If you were offering other intelligent species a book on the human condition, would it be the Judeo-christian scriptures or the complete works of William Shakespeare?

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

The discussion was over whether logic and reason are necessary. You want to condemn Christians. You're not using reason to do so, so I guess we can put you on the wrong side of the topic at hand.

The writer of Macbeth has ambition, treachery and emptiness down perfectly. The writer of Revelation was clearly unhinged.

So what?

Do you want everyone to just agree with you?

don't think pop psychology is going to rescue an immoral philosophy. Or is it an immoral hobby?

Stuart

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

 

[Stuu]

Some one thing has always existed and is eternal. You've acquiesced Einstein's God.

That doesn't explain where your god came from.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps you should have left the replying to Clete. Have you ever read Shakespeare or seen it performed?

The discussion was over whether logic and reason are necessary. You want to condemn Christians. You're not using reason to do so, so I guess we can put you on the wrong side of the topic at hand.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

So what? Do you want everyone to just agree with you?

Did you have something you particularly wanted to say? Or did you hit reply for want of something to do?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Well it's a point I suppose. Not sure what it relates to.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

Where did your god come from?


Where did your god come from?

Nowhere. God did not comef from anywhere, He has always existed.

How is this relevant? Make the argument, if you can.

What are the different categories of evidence, in your opinion, and how would they share the property of being unambiguous?

Why do you ask questions to which I have already given the answers?

No.

Yes! The sort of evidence that you need for all three of those things is quite different. Eye witness testimony is not the same sort of evidence that physical evidence is and the concepts that govern mathematical proofs often (not always) have no counterpart in the physical world whatsoever.

I am an empiricist as well as a rationalist.

You are neither! You want to be both but the way this conversation is going, I'm not sure that you even know what those terms mean. At the very least you are not either of those things consistently.

There is no difference between the kind of evidence you collect in your three examples,

You really should spend a bit of time thinking through what you're going to say before responding like this off the top of your head.

and little difference in the way logic is applied.

What could you possibly mean by this? What could the self-esposed rationalist conceivably mean by this?

You deduce the identity of the murderer and the shape of the earth, and you infer the Pythagorean relationship. You could also prove the relationship mathematically, which is just applying mathematics to the observed geometry on which it is based in the first place. A square is a thing squared, and so on.

That's all my lines! Thank you for at least tacitly conceding the point!

There are, in fact, at least 367 different proofs of the Pythagorean Thorem. Some of them are mathematical, some geometrical and some physical. Each different kind takes different types of evidence and applies the rules of logic to them and proceed to proof that the square of the two shorter sides of a right triangle added together equals the square of the longest side.

The word unambiguous implies that a logical structure already exists, one that is waiting for a logically exclusive piece of evidence capable of a providing a definitive answer to an hypothesis. Do you have such evidence in the case of your god?

I don't know who brought up the term "unambiguous" and so I don't see how this question follows from what has been said.

Are you agreeing that your appeal to evidence is an appeal to reason or not?

The answer to your question is an emphatic "yes", as I have already told you. Let's see if you can answer my question as clearly.

Christianity demands love on pain of burning in sulfur, and it insists you accept a human sacrifice that removes your responsibility for your wrongdoing, vicarious scapegoating in other words. That's two immoral propositions, both pretty central to biblical teaching. Had I been alive in ancient Palestine I would have felt compelled to try to stop the execution of Jesus.

You would have failed in any such attempt. What an incredibly blasphemous and foolish things to say.

Your understanding of Christianity has exactly nothing at all to do with reason. You hate God, that's what your problem is. Any claim on your part that your rejection of Christianity has anything to do with evidence or sound reason or anything else other than raw emotional hatred is a flat out lie.

"Vicarious scapegoating" as you call it, is only immoral if the one being scapegoated isn't doing it of his own free will. It would be immoral to punish someone for another persons wrong doing against his willbut it is not immoral for a man to offer his own life in exchange for the life of someone he loves. No greater love exists than if a man lies down his own life for his friends. (I think I might have read that somewhere!).
.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”​

Notwithstanding your valiant attempts to convince me otherwise, Judeo-christian 'teaching' also strikes me as being a wrong answer to the question of how the universe works and the nature of the human condition. The golf version that has us blind says nothing to me at all. It reads as virtue signalling. Poor christians, it says. See how virtuous we are for all the suffering we do. Well, I would like to stand up for your basic human dignity against such a miserable philosophy.

It seems your mind is broken. The correct response to what I said is the exact opposite of what you've said here. The precise opposite! No Christian would ever say such a thing, nor would it ever occur to them to do so. Your comments have no connection whatsoever to anything I've said! What suffering are you even talking about?

You made a rediculous analogy about playing a perfect game of golf and I tried to tell you that Christianity teaches that you are entirely incapable of even playing the game at all never mind playing it perfectly, even saying that is something of a convolution of the truth. It isn't about playing any sort of game where someone is given credit for points scored and if it were, the only player who would have any points on the board is Jesus Christ Himself. Christian DO NOT claim to be victim nor do we claim to be righteous! Quite the contrary, we claim to be completely the opposite of righteous except so far as Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us by virue of His propiciary death on the cross and subsiquent resurrection from the dead. The only righteousness a Christian rightly claims is that which is given to him as a gift a free gift that was not deserved, earned or otherwise paid for by any ability, skill or effort of our own. As such the golf analogy just does not work!

No, you've got me there. Perhaps you could be clearer about which pieces of evidence are which in your construction of a prosecution of my dishonesty.

I'm not interested in doing your thinking for you. I reread my post. It's clear enough. Read it again for yourself, you can follow it without me holding your hand through the process.

Stuu: Well that's exactly my plan.

"You're disqualified for the prize no matter how well the rest of your game happens to be" is my plan. I don't actually believe any such 'prize' exists, but if it did it would be completely contradictory to how I value my life.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Make the argument or keep these meaningless comments to yourself. I'm not here to be your councelor.

I recommend reading back over what you wrote.

I meant precisely what I said. You seem to be in far less control of your mind and emotions then you pretend to be.

I don't feel it is my fault that there are over 40,000 sufficiently different ways of being a Judeo-christian that they can be called denominations or cults. But I do take it seriously to discover what a person thinks and then not misrepresent them with strawman statements.

Saying it doesn't make it so. We've got a whole converstation going here that stands as proof to the contrary.

You aren't really helping me understand your position by just telling me I have you wrong.

It is you who are being evasive and attempting to rabbit trail the discussion. I have limited time and can't give you the entire Christian faith in one post. Instead I respond to what you've said, make corrections and then ask you questions that you don't ever seem to answer and then whine about how I'm not helping you to understand.

Conversations are two way streets, Stuart. If you won't participate, that isn't my fault.

You will appreciate that my objections do refer to beliefs that are actually held by people who call themselves christians.

No, I won't.

Just because someone calls themselves a Chrisitan, doesn't make them one. Have you ever attempted to understand what Christianity is by reading the bible instead of cherry picking every weird doctrine than anyone who happend to be standing behind a pulpit sent in the direction of your ears? Ever stopped to consider that what they were teaching wasn't actually real Christianity?

No, clearly that has not every occured to you. That's probably because you weren't listening for anything other than didbit to use as weapons against Christianity and so you were/ are drawin to the weirdest, stupidest and most outrageously ridiculous things anything with a cross behind him happened to be saying.

So perhaps you can justify your responses according to your own interpretations of the scriptures, or whatever else you use to justify. I am certainly happy to reject christianity on your own interpretation, if you wish to explain it to me. Of course it's always possible the power of your argument may convince me otherwise.

Not if you won't participate in a two way conversation. We can start with you answering the questions I have already asked.

The flaw in this is your assumption that we are designed.

It is not an assumption. Even evolutionists believe we are designed.

The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

That wrong assumption makes all the difference. Like the so-called problem of evil, your belief system has invented a problem that doesn't really exist. You are trying to assign blame where no blame is warranted.

Stuart

Saying it doesn't make it so, Stuart. Making such a claim does not count as an argument.

Clete

 

[Stuu]

Nowhere. God did not comef from anywhere, He has always existed.

A god from nowhere, that made everything. That rather makes a hypocrisy out of christians mocking 'Everything from nothing'. Everything from nothing has been demonstrated to be a pretty good model, given that the total energy of the universe is zero, and everything is made of energy borrowed from the inflation of space-time. What is a god from nowhere? How can it have always been when the universe hasn't always been? I recommend doing a bit more work on this. It sounds both silly and lazy.

Eye witness testimony is not the same sort of evidence that physical evidence

That's true. Eyewitness evidence is very poor at best.

is and the concepts that govern mathematical proofs often (not always) have no counterpart in the physical world whatsoever.

So you wouldn't call that evidence then.

Stuu: I am an empiricist as well as a rationalist.

You are neither! You want to be both but the way this conversation is going, I'm not sure that you even know what those terms mean. At the very least you are not either of those things consistently.

The scientific method is a synthesis of empirical observation and logical interpretation. I would always welcome having pointed out to me any mistakes I have made in regards to the application of science. Can you point to a specific example?

I don't know who brought up the term "unambiguous" and so I don't see how this question follows from what has been said.

I brought up unambiguous when asked what would convince me.

Are you agreeing that your appeal to evidence is an appeal to reason or not?

No. Reason is not the same thing as evidence. There is a structure, called the scientific method, that relates the two to provide inferences about how the universe works. But it's not science if it's just reason or just evidence.

Stuu: Had I been alive in ancient Palestine I would have felt compelled to try to stop the execution of Jesus.

You would have failed in any such attempt. What an incredibly blasphemous and foolish things to say.

It's blasphemous that I would wish to save the life of a man you call the son of your god? How does that work? Why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn't he just say, I'm actually the god you have in mind, and you are all forgiven?

I think I might know the real reasons why, but how about you have a go at explaining it?

You hate God, that's what your problem is.

Wouldn't it be madness for me to hate something I don't think is real?

Any claim on your part that your rejection of Christianity has anything to do with evidence or sound reason or anything else other than raw emotional hatred is a flat out lie.

Is that because you have hidden your god where evidence and reason can't be used to deduce anything about it? If it's just a matter of your word then I'll just assert my word, also supported by neither evidence nor reason: It's not as you say, because I say so.

"Vicarious scapegoating" as you call it, is only immoral if the one being scapegoated isn't doing it of his own free will. It would be immoral to punish someone for another persons wrong doing against his willbut it is not immoral for a man to offer his own life in exchange for the life of someone he loves. No greater love exists than if a man lies down his own life for his friends. (I think I might have read that somewhere!).

But that's not what is on offer here. Firstly, there is no real choice on the part of the person being 'saved'. It's not just a matter of throwing the promotional material away and thinking to yourself, no, that vicarious punishment isn't for me. Actually, if you don't do this then it's burning sulfur for you. You are forced to accept an act of human sacrifice on pain of punishment. And this is the choice your god makes, to not like what you do and so store up severe punishments for you. Why does your god do that?

Secondly, it's pretty clear in John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19 and 1 John 3:5 that the outcome of Jesus's execution is the removal of wrongdoing. Hebrews 10:11-12 also demonstrates this. And this is the second objection, that while a price can be paid on your behalf, restitution can be paid for wrongdoing, a penalty can taken by another, but the responsibility for your actions stay with you. But according to these verses the wrongdoing itself is being removed from you. That's the really immoral part. I refuse to let anyone else remove my responsibility for whatever harm I have caused.

The correct response to what I said is the exact opposite of what you've said here. The precise opposite! No Christian would ever say such a thing, nor would it ever occur to them to do so. Your comments have no connection whatsoever to anything I've said! What suffering are you even talking about?

Paul lays out the christian martyr complex for you:

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

2 Corinthians 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

So does whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

And whoever wrote the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

And whoever wrote the Gospel of John:

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Poor christians. It's part of the psychology of the christian meme, to have you suffer nobly.

The only righteousness a Christian rightly claims is that which is given to him as a gift a free gift that was not deserved, earned or otherwise paid for by any ability, skill or effort of our own. As such the golf analogy just does not work!

And don't forget, my plan is to not accept that gift on ethical grounds.

We've got a whole converstation going here that stands as proof to the contrary.

You don't tend to tell me when I have crossed a line for you that isn't a line for other christians. So I will keep making the same mistakes until you tell me.

I have limited time and can't give you the entire Christian faith in one post.

You don't have to tell me about the entire christian faith. Just tell me when your personal version of it differs from my assumption. Are you Calvinist about what your god knows about the future, for example?

Stuu: You will appreciate that my objections do refer to beliefs that are actually held by people who call themselves christians.

No, I won't. Just because someone calls themselves a Chrisitan, doesn't make them one. Have you ever attempted to understand what Christianity is by reading the bible instead of cherry picking every weird doctrine than anyone who happend to be standing behind a pulpit sent in the direction of your ears? Ever stopped to consider that what they were teaching wasn't actually real Christianity?

So you are right, and any christian who disagrees with you is wrong.

No, clearly that has not every occured to you. That's probably because you weren't listening for anything other than didbit to use as weapons against Christianity and so you were/ are drawin to the weirdest, stupidest and most outrageously ridiculous things anything with a cross behind him happened to be saying.

What is didbit? Can you provide a link for that?

Even evolutionists believe we are designed.

Can you name one evolutionary biologist who believes we are designed?

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

A god from nowhere, that made everything. That rather makes a hypocrisy out of christians mocking 'Everything from nothing'. Everything from nothing has been demonstrated to be a pretty good model, given that the total energy of the universe is zero, and everything is made of energy borrowed from the inflation of space-time. What is a god from nowhere? How can it have always been when the universe hasn't always been? I recommend doing a bit more work on this. It sounds both silly and lazy.

The lazy one here is you.

Clete didn't say just "Nowhere."

Had you kept reading, you would have found that he also said "He [God] has always existed."

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there was no "where" before God created, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Comparing [an eternally existing God who created everything] with [a non-existent universe creating itself] is what is silly.

The latter is logically impossible, for in order to create, one must first exist. A non-existent universe by definition does not exist, and therefore cannot do anything, let alone create itself.

It's blasphemous that I would wish to save the life of a man you call the son of your god? How does that work? Why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn't he just say, I'm actually the god you have in mind, and you are all forgiven?

Lots of loaded questions here.

First of all, Christ died to save mankind from his sin, which is literally to miss the mark of perfection, because every man chooses to depart from perfection.

Second, God DID say that it was Him. People refused to see.

Third, superfluous forgiveness harms, not helps.

Wouldn't it be madness for me to hate something I don't think is real?

It's madness to reject reality.

Reality is that God exists, whether you think or have convinced yourself that He's real or not.

Is that because you have hidden your god where evidence and reason can't be used to deduce anything about it?

I think you'll find that there is plenty of evidence for His existence, but you have simply refused to be convinced by it.

But that's not what is on offer here. Firstly, there is no real choice on the part of the person being 'saved'.

Sure there is.

God has set before man life and death, and has told him to choose life.

Man often chooses otherwise.

That's a real choice.

So you are right, and any christian who disagrees with you is wrong.

Not what he said.

 

[Stuu]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there was no "where" before God created, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.

So that means this god was nowhere before it created a where to occupy?

Comparing [an eternally existing God who created everything] with [a non-existent universe creating itself] is what is silly... A non-existent universe by definition does not exist, and therefore cannot do anything, let alone create itself..

It's you talking about the universe creating itself, not me.

The latter is logically impossible,

But it's logically possible to exist without coming into existence, and it is possible to be nowhere because where doesn't exist yet?

for in order to create, one must first exist.

In order to exist, one must first come into existence.

First of all, Christ died to save mankind from his sin, which is literally to miss the mark of perfection, because every man chooses to depart from perfection.

Why it is important that humans aim to be perfect?

Second, God DID say that it was Him. People refused to see.

I didn't hear any god say anything. Do you actually mean that Bronze Age people wrote down stuff and you happen to agree with their assertions about its inspiration, or origins? So then, we are not subjected to literal voices of any gods (how noisy that would be if all gods claimed to exist spoke at the same time). We are subjected to the interpretations of writings that claim for themselves divine inspiration. That is the basis on which you somehow require of yourself perfection. Nothing wrong with that goal, but what comes with your version is severe punishments for failing to achieve perfection or else failing to accept vicarious punishment for your failings on the perfection front.

It's madness to reject reality.

I agree with you there. Stripe keeps telling us too.

Reality is that God exists, whether you think or have convinced yourself that He's real or not.

This is the invisible, inaudible, insensible being that created the entire universe from a situation of nowhere, never having come into existence? The one that offers you little choice but to accept the proposition of collaborating in a human sacrifice as a substitute for being able to be perfect according to its criteria? Can you point to anything at all in the observable universe that tells you anything about that, independently of Bronze Age writing?

I think you'll find that there is plenty of evidence for His existence, but you have simply refused to be convinced by it.

I could post on a different forum and be told the same about a different god. Where is your discrimination between god claims, or against claims of no gods at all? What is the basis of your own arbitration on this? What convinced you, and how is it robust?

God has set before man life and death, and has told him to choose life.

For what end?

Stuart