Questions for Christians

[AAA]

Are you just going to assert that?

Umm....yes. ;)

Umm....ok then...

The problem with the problem of evil as it is traditionally posed is that it is too simple and ignores the complexity of evil.

Are you just going to assert that too?

If evil didn't come about through free will, then just how did it come about?

It just seems to be a fact of the way that our nervous systems evolved that we can experience suffering. It also just seems to be a fact that we often suffer pointlessly. The universe seems to be indifferent to our pointless suffering, as well as the pointless suffering of many conscious animals that also have evolved nervous systems that are capable of experiencing suffering.

It seems to me that it is the Christian who must account for pointless suffering in light of the Christian tenet that we are created by an all-loving father-figure deity who is omnipotent and omni-benevolent. As an atheist, I make no such claim, so there is no logical problem posed by the presence of "evil" in my world view.

Or one should probably rather look at it the other way around, and begin with the empiric observation: in light of the unimaginable magnitude of pointless suffering that defines the human experience through the ages and today (I will remind you that in this world of exquisite "intelligent design", a child dies the agonizing death of starvation every 5 seconds), how can Christians account for an all-loving father-figure deity who is omnipotent and omni-benevolent?

I started typing out a more detailed response to your other points but I am going to have to put more thought into this instead of just rehashing the typical answers. I'll try and respond at some point today.

Ok. Still waiting for the other suff... especially the Sai Baba example which nobody who had an interest in defending the historicity of the gospels has responded to. That silence speaks volumes...

 

[seekandlisten]

AAA,
Sorry, this thread is all over the place. What is your question exactly? Is your question about the Sai Baba in regards to the bible being infallible? The bible is not a history book nor is it God's spoken word to some guy and written down. It is definitely nowhere near a science book. Believers of God have merely held oral traditions and written records of this belief and that has become the bible as we know it today. The OT is a history of God and his Covenants and the NT is a portion of the records of Jesus and his followers and the example he left that we must follow if we want to live resurrected in God's Eternal Kingdom restored on earth. 'Evil' and 'suffering' are a result of us being separated from God and a result of our own selfish desires not specifically free will. A belief in God and following Jesus commandment of love your neighbor as yourself, we have a chance a being brought back to God and given eternal life in His Kindgom restored on earth. If this wasn't what you are looking for sorry but I wasn't sure of your question exactly.

 

[AAA]

AAA... What is your question exactly? Is your question about the Sai Baba in regards to the bible being infallible? The bible is ...

There are many simultaneous questions/discussions going on, as one would expect in a thread entitled "questions for Christians". I think that makes this thread interesting.

The specific discussion surrounding the gospels was the extent to which they represent sufficient evidence to accept the claims of Christianity.

From a historical perspective, my argument is 'no', they can't. The references to the work and opinions of Dr. Bart Erhman and the Sai Baba example I provided (Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:12 am) are meant to support that position.

I think that from a theological perspective, one can discuss the theological implications of the gospel tales as one wishes, just as one can discuss the theological implications of being touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[seekandlisten]

AAA... What is your question exactly? Is your question about the Sai Baba in regards to the bible being infallible? The bible is ...

There are many simultaneous questions/discussions going on, as one would expect in a thread entitled "questions for Christians".

The specific discussion surrounding the gospels was the extent to which they represent sufficient evidence to accept the claims of Christianity.

From a historical perspective, my argument is 'no', they can't. The references to the work and opinions of Dr. Bart Erhman and the Sai Baba example I provided (Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:12 am) are meant to support that position.

I think that from a theological perspective, one can discuss the theological implications of the gospel tales as one wishes, just as one can discuss the theological implications of being touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What comes into play regarding your question is whether you are talking about christianity as a religion or the fact that there is a God and there is a plan of salvation. No religion is necessary to try to understand God. One could be an athiest and still be saved with an understanding of God and His plan for salvation. If you are interested in questions regarding my beliefs in this i am open to questions.

As for the gospels are you referring only to the 4 gospels found in the canonized bible? Are they sufficient evidence for anything pertaining to christianity? Not if one doesn't believe the bible to be true. Can we prove God exists? No. At some point in order to come to an answer one must have faith in a Creator. Do you have to believe in 6 literal days of creation? No. Doesn't a belief that no God exists, make one believe that everything happens by chance and there is no reason behind life as we know it?

If anything I've presented interests you don't hesitate to ask and I will do my best to answer. I am a follower of Jesus and believe in a Creator of this world and that by following Jesus example of love one might be granted the gift of eternal life. I don't believe Jesus was God and I don't associate myself with any religion. Religion won't get you into 'heaven.'

 

[AAA]

Can we prove God exists? No. At some point in order to come to an answer one must have faith in a Creator.

Why? Why should anybody believe anything on insufficient evidence? That's what faith is after all, believing something without sufficient evidence. Why should anybody ever do that, let alone consider the belief to represent the most profound truth(s) about our universe that exist?

Religion won't get you into 'heaven.'

The set of beliefs, principles or prescriptions that you suggest will get someone into heaven is a religion.

 

[seekandlisten]

Can we prove God exists? No. At some point in order to come to an answer one must have faith in a Creator.

Why? Why should anybody believe anything on insufficient evidence? That's what faith is after all, believing something without sufficient evidence. Why should anybody ever do that, let alone consider the belief to represent the most profound truth(s) about our universe that exist?

Religion won't get you into 'heaven.'

The set of beliefs, principles or prescriptions that you suggest will get someone into heaven is a religion.

Do you believe there is no God, therefore life is meaningless and there is no purpose? I can't make you believe anything. That's what religion is to me is when I must believe someone's set of beliefs and rules in order to gain salvation. If you don't believe there is a God or at least some form of Intelligent design I can't really answer any question on what happens in a world that just occurs and things happen for no reason and we are merely just here to live an die.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that believe in the religion of christianity that would tell me i won't be saved but I take no heed to their judgements as I will only be judged by One and He will judge my heart not my religion. I know what I believe in and yes it must take faith but it is no more than seeking with a humble heart. I can't tell you how to for sure without a doubt be saved. One must first recognize a need for salvation before they can proceed on that path to salvation.

 

[AAA]

Do you believe there is no God?

Yes. I believe that there is no god because I haven't seen any good evidence to believe in a god. Just, I'm sure, as you don't believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

therefore life is meaningless and there is no purpose?

No. An emphatic no in fact. My life is full of meaning and purpose. Though the meaning and purpose in my life are not cosmic meaning and purpose, the meaning and purpose in my life are powerful and fulfilling.

 

[(THE)]

Do you believe there is no God?

Yes. I believe that there is no god because I haven't seen any good evidence to believe in a god. Just, I'm sure, as you don't believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

therefore life is meaningless and there is no purpose?

No. An emphatic no in fact. My life is full of meaning and purpose. Though the meaning and purpose in my life are not cosmic meaning and purpose, the meaning and purpose in my life are powerful and fulfilling.

Funny how some see no evidence,,and some see evidence all around them..........

 

[seekandlisten]

Do you believe there is no God?

Yes. I believe that there is no god because I haven't seen any good evidence to believe in a god. Just, I'm sure, as you don't believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

therefore life is meaningless and there is no purpose?

No. An emphatic no in fact. My life is full of meaning and purpose. Though the meaning and purpose in my life are not cosmic meaning and purpose, the meaning and purpose in my life are powerful and fulfilling.

Well if evidence is what you are looking for I cannot help you. The evidence is on a personal level between that person and Who/What they believe to be God. No religion (christianity, buddhism, muslim, atheism, wicca, etc.) can prove anything but faith in what they believe. I don't think I can offer anything else, but if you have a question for me I will try and answer it.

 

[AAA]

Funny how some see no evidence,,and some see evidence all around them..........

History and science have shown us that our intuition is a very poor way of acquiring reliable knowledge.

The variety and complexity of life have for millennia undoubtedly been widely considered "evidence" of their creation. Thanks to Darwin, we now know better.

Darwinism is a consciousness raiser. Once you recognize that the variety and complexity of life can arise from natural means, without invoking a supernatural creator, well, its like realizing that you don't have to invoke Zeus to explain lightening, or a virgin sacrifice to Baal to explain a good crop. These are good things.

There is an unbroken history reversing the substitution of man's superstition for knowledge.

Don't you think that this should be accounted for when considering "the evidence all around us"?

By the way, I think you have the coolest username.

 

[AAA]

No religion can prove anything but faith in what they believe.

Does that sentence make sense to you?

Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. As soon as you can "prove" it, its no longer a matter of "faith".

Similarly, if you can't prove it, you can't say its true based on "faith". All you can say is "I don't know".

 

[seekandlisten]

No religion can prove anything but faith in what they believe.

Does that sentence make sense to you?

Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. As soon as you can "prove" it, its no longer a matter of "faith".

Similarly, if you can't prove it, you can't say its true based on "faith". All you can say is "I don't know".

I was going to head a different way with this but you got a point.

 

[TheCatholic]

Let's imagine that Sathya Sai Baba dies today, and his followers begin an oral tradition of his exploits culminating, in 30-70 years from now (ie. 2040-2080), in a few of them finally writing down accounts of his miracles (including virgin birth, by the way).

Now lets suppose that Sathya Sai Baba followers make thousands of copies of these accounts by hand over the next several hundred years, and that those copies contain changes that, at least on some occasions, seem deliberate so as to make the accounts more believable, not to mention honest copying errors that affect the meaning of those accounts (see Misquoting Jesus - NY Times best seller by Bart Erhman).

Now let's imagine that 2000 years go by and there are no reports of these apparent miracles by skeptics or un-believers ... in fact, there are only a few accounts apparently attributed to Sai Baba's disciples or, as Bart Erhman has put it, "authors who did not know [Sai Baba], authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns". Furthermore, when these few accounts are read horizontally rather than vertically, one can find dozens (if not hundreds) of factual discrepancies in them.

Would those accounts really amount to sufficient evidence to conclude in the year 4010 that Sathya Sai Baba actually performed miracles - not that a man named Sathya Sai Baba lived and made certain claims, but that he actually performed miracles and was divine?

You are missing the most important ingredient: The Holy Spirit.

Jesus promised the Apostles - and their successors - the gift of truth so that they would always teach the truth, "whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

 

[AAA]

You are missing the most important ingredient: The Holy Spirit.

And your reasoning is circular since you assume the supernatural existence and powers of the Holy Spirit who is one with the supernatural Jesus, whose verity is precisely what is in question.

I will agree with you on this though: the most important ingredient required for swallowing the gospels hook, line, and sinker, as though they are historical texts, is "faith". They simply cannot be considered adequate evidence to accept the truth of their miracle claims. Anybody who thinks they can should first answer the Sai Baba gospel example I provided earlier

 

[Drew]

The evidence is on a personal level between that person and Who/What they believe to be God.

I do not agree that the evidence is confined to this, although I do think this is relevant. I think that what one might term "historical" arguments can also be made - that, for example, the factual resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the best "theory" that explain what we know about the origins of Christianity.

Now, of course, if people are going to a priori rule out things like resurrection as "impossible", well there is no discussion to be had. But, of course, such a position is extremely dubious - on precisely what grounds is resurrection ruled out from consideration? Because "that sort of thing never happened before"? Well, I don't think that works historically. History is full of "one of" events with no precedent.

Now I am fully aware that things are not so simple as this. But I politely suggest that many of the arguments put forward by "atheists" do not really stand up to scrutiny. Having said this, I am perhaps probably going to "hit and run" - make my assertions and then proceed to leave the discussion. It bothers me when others do this. However, the arguments that I would want to make are lengthy and complex. Perhaps I will return to this issue.

 

[TheCatholic]

You are missing the most important ingredient: The Holy Spirit.

And your reasoning is circular since you assume the supernatural existence and powers of the Holy Spirit who is one with the supernatural Jesus, whose verity is precisely what is in question......

And you "assume" the non-existance of such a being, which makes your reasoning no better than mine. In fact, mathematically, my position is far more probable than yours.

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution. That only leaves one possibility: God.

 

[francisdesales]

I will agree with you on this though: the most important ingredient required for swallowing the gospels hook, line, and sinker, as though they are historical texts, is "faith". They simply cannot be considered adequate evidence to accept the truth of their miracle claims. Anybody who thinks they can should first answer the Sai Baba gospel example I provided earlier

The problem I see here is the idea that Christianity can be PROVEN by REASON ALONE. Christians and atheists need to realize this is not possible.

The attempt to COMPLETELY rationalize the faith is bound to fail, since our beliefs are based on the faith that the Apostles related accurately the events that they witnessed. We experience God personally, but even that is based upon faith, not something that is scientifically proveable. Everything can be "explained away" by the person who refuses to contemplate the possibility that God exists as we claim. In the same manner, we can also REFUSE to believe that George Washington was the first president. This "knowledge" is based upon the reasonable BELIEF that men recorded faithfully that Washington WAS the first president of the US. But the "non-believer" can also refuse to believe it by not having faith in the historical accounts.

Our faith is reasonable, but it is outside of the realm of scientific evidence, much the same way that the theory of evolution is based upon faith and is not scientifically proveable, or having faith that your car will start and get you to work today... Our life is BASED upon reasonable faith in a variety of things and events that we take for granted. Faith in God is also reasonable and explainable, since there should be no contradiction between faith and reason. Believing in God is not a contradiction and can be reasonably explained and accepted as valid.

Regards

 

[TheCatholic]

.

Five proofs of God's existance according to St. Thomas Aquinas:


The Argument from Motion

In the first way, Thomas argues that anything that moves must be moved by another. For example, the eight ball is moved by the cue ball, which in turn is moved by the pool cue, which in turn is moved by the billiards player. But we cannot have an infinite regress of movers, so there has to be an Unmoved Mover to account for all other motion in the universe.

Let’s say that A is moved by B, and B is moved by C. What Aquinas means in the first way is that we cannot go infinitely on with this series of movers. A’s motion has to be accounted for ultimately by something that is not moved itself. In other words, there has to be a First Mover at the beginning of this chain of movers.

Now when Aquinas speaks of an "infinite regress," he does not mean a chronological sequence going back into time. In fact, the very concept of time is irrelevant to the notion of infinite regress. Rather, Thomas means that there must be something that accounts for all other motion, something upon which all other motion depends.

But the problem is with Thomas’s next statement: "We call this being God." As we will see with the rest of the five ways, this is an enormous logical leap. While it is correct that the A-B-C string of movers proves that there must be a First Mover, how do we know that it is identical to the First Mover of X-Y-Z? Couldn’t there be as many First Movers as there are lines of movers? How do we know that there is only one Unmoved Mover? And even if there is only one, how do we know that it still exists or that it is to be identified as God? The answers to these questions are not found in the first way itself.


The Argument from Efficient Causality

The second way is similar in structure to the first way and suffers from the same weaknesses: What proof do we have that there is only one Uncaused Cause that causes everything else? Moreover, what proof is there that the Unmoved Mover of the first way is identical to the Uncaused Cause of the second way? Assuming there is only one of each, couldn’t there be an Unmoved Mover that is distinct from the Uncaused Cause?

And even if we assume that there is only one, how do we know that this Uncaused Cause is one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent? These qualities are discussed later on in the Summa, but remember: Thomas assumes we’ve read everything prior but nothing after. So by attributing divine attributes to this Uncaused Cause at this point, we’re getting ahead of ourselves—and Aquinas too.


The Argument from Contingency of Being

The third way is the one that comes closest to an actual proof, but it is also one of the more problematic ones. Thomas argues that because everything’s existence is contingent—that is, it’s possible for any given thing to not exist—there must be a being whose existence is necessary and accounts for everything else. Otherwise, nothing would exist.

The problem with this argument is that Thomas offers no justification for the claim that without a necessary being nothing would exist. Couldn’t each being’s existence depend on another, which depends on another, ad infinitum? According to Thomistic scholar John Wippel:
While Thomas himself does grant the philosophical possibility of an eternally created world, he does so ultimately only under the assumption that there is also an eternal creative cause. While this is true, he cannot assume the existence of such a being at this point in the third way. . . . Why Thomas himself did not regard this as a serious flaw in his argument is something I have been unable to determine (The Metaphysical Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic University of America Press, 465–67).


The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

On the surface, the fourth way appears to be an invalid argument, as its premise is inherently flawed. Thomas says that a hot thing is hot only insofar as it resembles something that is hot to the maximum degree. But when we say that a thing has a quality, we do not necessarily assume the maximum of that quality. When we call a man tall, we mean that he is taller than most men, not that he resembles the tallest man or tallness itself. In the same way, we call something hot because it is hotter than most other things, not because it resembles heat itself.

On this point, many Thomistic scholars are willing to cut Aquinas some slack due to his outmoded Aristotelian physics. After all, when we consider moral perfections in this light, the argument seems true enough: If we took 100 of our most despicable criminals and singled out the least offensive one, we would not call him "a good man" just because he’s not as bad as the others. We call a man "a good man" insofar as he approaches goodness itself. Thus, when we speak of perfections such as goodness, truth, and beauty, there does appear to be a maximum to which we refer.

The problem, though, is that this reasoning assumes a Platonic viewpoint. While it is easy for a Platonist to argue for vague, ethereal "forms" of moral perfections, such a move is not justified within Thomas’s empiricist framework. Msgr. Wippel points out:
Within Thomas’s distinctive metaphysical approach, even though a considerable Platonic and Neoplatonic influence must be recognized, today’s reader of this text may protest: The principle in question is not self-evident to him (Wippel, 475).
And, of course, even if it is proven that pure beauty, truth, and goodness exist, it is still a logical leap to say that they are one and the same, much less to call this being God.


The Argument from Final Causality

The fifth way may be the most misunderstood of the five. It looks to many modern Christian readers that Thomas is advancing Intelligent Design theory. In reality, though, Aquinas says nothing in the fifth way about how things in nature interact with each other; rather, he is concerned with how things gravitate toward their final ends.

Following Aristotle, Aquinas asserts that there are four kinds of causes: material, efficient, formal, and final. A final cause is the goal or purpose of an action. For example, the final cause of a sculptor building a statue might be the sculptor’s desire for a commission. A runner might have as a final cause getting exercise or wanting to get somewhere fast. Because no human ever performs any action unless he expects to gain some kind of benefit from it, it follows that every human action has a final cause.

But what about non-intelligent beings, such as plants and animals? They too seem to act toward an end (namely, their own self-preservation), but because they cannot perceive final causes due to lack of an intellect, Thomas says, they must be directed toward their ends by an intelligent being, which everyone calls God.

Apart from the difficulty that has plagued the other four (i.e., how do we know there’s only one?), Thomas makes a couple more leaps in the fifth way. First, he assumes that the intelligent being is the one doing the directing. Could it not be that the plant or animal is directing itself, albeit unknowingly? Or maybe a third party is doing the actual directing?

Furthermore, how do we know that this director is intelligent? We have not established the final cause of this being’s directing other things toward their final causes. In other words, why does it direct other things toward their final ends (assuming that they really are the final ends)? What is the final cause of all this directing? More speculation is required to answer all of these questions, none of which is contained in the fifth way itself.

 

[AAA]

You are missing the most important ingredient: The Holy Spirit.

And your reasoning is circular since you assume the supernatural existence and powers of the Holy Spirit who is one with the supernatural Jesus, whose verity is precisely what is in question......

And you "assume" the non-existance of such a being, which makes your reasoning no better than mine.

I will accept your last sentence as an admission that your reasoning in your previous post was fallacious (circular, to be precise). Please correct me if I have been overly presumptious.

Now, please note that I have advanced numerous arguments in this lengthy thread supporting why I do not accept the existence of the Christian god. Since you have not addressed any of those, I would politely suggest that you seem to be in no position to advance the charge that my reasoning is as fallacious as yours is.

Having said that, I would like to defend the assumption that Christianity is false, even though, as I wrote earlier, I have not assumed that and have provided argumentation to support my position in earlier posts:

Suppose I told you that a supernatural undetectable one-armed dragon named Theo was living in my garage and engaged in a loving, personal relationship with me. Would you be guilty of circular reasoning (or any logical fallacy for that matter) if you "assumed the non-existence of such a being"? I hardly think so. Your assumption that I was full of baloney would be the only reasonable position to hold, and the onus would be on me to provide the extraordinary evidence in support of this extraordinary claim. Barring me doing that, you'd remain perfectly reasonable and justified in assuming that I was full of baloney. It is prudent to not believe everything one hears and reads, and the more extraordinary the claim one hears or reads, the more prudent one is in assuming it to be false. It is also prudent to remain open minded and critically (read: intellectually honestly) assess the evidence and argumentation provided in support of the claims that one hears and reads. That's all I'm doing.

So here is the claim Christians (and I assume, you) make: 2,000 years ago, a carpenter named Jesus was born of a virgin, and was his own father. Jesus raised the dead, walked on water, and performed numerous other miracles. He was ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the indiscretions of mankind, and was himself, raised from the dead after 72 hours, when his body flew without the aid of technology into the skies where he entered an undetectable supernatural realm to join his father and a third undetectable supernatural entity called the Holy Spirit, where he listens to and occasionally answers the prayers of billions of people while awaiting the opportunity to judge our candidacy to spend eternity in torment if we have failed to earnestly come to believe these words.

Surely you are reasonable enough to understand if one were to "assume" that this extraordinary tale is false while awaiting sound logical argumentation and, more importantly, extraordinary evidence, in support of its truth.

And surely you are reasonable enough to recognize that when the evidence of the claims of the gospels as provided by the gospels themselves is being considered, it does your position in claiming that the gospels ought to be considered as infallible and absolutely true a serious disservice to suggest that one ought to reach that conclusion because of the reassuring knowledge that the Holy Spirit has made it so.

 

[AAA]

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible...That only leaves one possibility: God.

I think we can all agree that the mathematical and scientific community have not been persuaded by this mathematical "proof" of god that you alluded to. Perhaps it is because of what I perceive to be the following flaw:

The argument says that the existence of life one earth is so statistically improbable as to be excluded from reasonable consideration without a creator god. However, the existence of a being that is sophisticated and powerful enough to create life on earth must be exponentially more statistically improbable than the life on earth that is being explained by said being. Accordingly, the creator god you propose should similarly be excluded from reasonable consideration by the very argument that is being proposed. (This is known as a self-refuting argument.)

I would also add that even if the mathematical proof you have alluded to were true, it would still provide no support for the myriad claims made by Christians about the creator god (summarized in my previous post) that amount to Christian theism. At most, on the basis of this "proof", you could only support deism.