Jesus Doesn't Look Like Jesus Anymore, Says Scholar

junebug »

Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Wow, Chris333, good to see you back and full of zest! I really enjoyed reading Parts 1-3! Well worth the wait!

Chris333 »

Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume (Part 1),

Sorry about the delay. The vacation was nice but I am glad to be home.

You said (to seedplanter),

"Atheists aren't trying to take credit for the development of modern science; what matters is that it works,(regardless of belief/unbelief)"

True, however this doesn't mean that belief or unbelief is superior (if that is what you were implying).

(To Adam)

"What kind of proof would convince you that God does not exist?"

I believe that Adam was asking you for the proof, that you have found convincing, that God does not exist. I too would be interested to see your argument for atheism, I spend too much time trying to defend my viewpoints.

"Have a good vacation, but remember to bring me back lots of objective evidence, or I won't believe you ever left!;-) "

Thanks, and trust me the vacation happened (haha)! So objective evidence? I think I said this below, but I rather prefer Craig's five point argument for the existence of God.

Chris333 »

Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume (Part 2)

1)Cosmological- All evidence shows that the universe did begin with a "Big Bang", and there are many other reasons to believe that the universe did have a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Since the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. (Now in order to avoid a never ending chain of causes, which is logically impossible, or go completely against science, we would need an uncaused, immensely powerful, and "eternal" being. God fits the description)

Note: I have yet to hear a good alternative from atheists, the most common objection is that "God must have a cause" But that is not the case. God is by definition, uncaused (no beginning no end). Atheist counter theories range from multiple universes (very very bad science, and entirely unbelievable), to an oscillating universe (multiple "bangs" and "crunches", but this one doesn't workout either, as each "new" universe would get smaller and smaller until it becomes a singularity, and if it had been happening forever, then it should have reached a singluarity by now), to simply an eternal universe (against modern science). Without a stronger atheist argument, and with good reason to believe it is God, I believe this argument is pretty strong.

2)Teleological- At the "conception" of the universe at the Big Bang, many natural laws were formed, including gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. The ratio of these natural laws formed independently of one another, and according to no set pattern (as far as modern scholarship tells us). What is more, if any were changed even slightly, then life would be impossible. The window is so small for life as we know it, that I believe one science philosopher likened it to pointing at a 1 inch target across the universe, and hitting it perfectly. The chances are so astronomical that any rational person would believe it had been "set up". Well, if it was set up, then by who? Again God seems to be the best answer (unless you can provide better?)

Chris333 »

Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume (Part 3)

3)Morality- It seems obvious that objective morals exist, and most people do believe that objective morals exist. Atheism fails miserably in defining any kind of objective moral standard, and theism explains morals very nicely (as argued below). This leaves us with two options, 1) reject objective morals and accept (shudders) relative morals (cringes) or 2) believe in God.

Note: I have yet to hear an argument from atheists for objective morals that was even vaguely satisfactory. The best is that they "just are" like 1+1=2. But this is not true, 1+1=2 is not equivalent to morality, and therefore the comparison cannot be made. And, even if morals "just are" then that still is not a proof, it is just saying something. I can say, "I am the greatest man on earth" but this statement is literally valueless unless I could prove it in some way (I cannot, because I am not).

4) The historical evidence for the Resurrection- William Lane Craig gives a very simple and straightforward argument for this. Nearly all biblical scholars agree that certain events described in the Bible are indeed accurate. 1) That Jesus did probably die on a cross, 2) That Jesus was buried in a tomb (owned by a member of the Sanhedrin), 3) That there was an empty tomb (witnessed first by women), and 4) that the followers of Jesus did have some kind of experiences of Jesus after He died.

Now if we accept these as true (again, most biblical historical scholars accept them as true, even the secular ones), then it seems that the Resurrection is the best fit to answering these events. Other theories presented (swoon theory, stolen body, Judas died on the cross, etc.) all come up short and just do not explain the facts. In the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig, Craig did an excellent job of defending his position, and it seemed that Ehrman was just left saying "Well supernatural events just do not happen!" As if that proves something.

5) Experiential- This is what we have been discussing, and though it is not exactly "objective" in the sense that you would like, without good reason why I should doubt my experience with God, I see no reason why I should reject them.

So that is the very simple, basic explanation of 5 separate, but connected arguments. There is a lot more, but I am doing all this off the top of my head, and it is very late where I am, so it might not be as coherent as it usually might be. I await your response.

Chris333 »

Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Seedplanter,

"Chris, have a great vacation! As much time as you spend on here debating skeptics, she is probably quite anxious to get outta town"

Haha, yeah... I have been trying to cut back a little here so I can spend more time with her, I have 2 other cites I am posting on too, and it gets a little time consuming. No worries though, I am sure I spend enough time with her. Thanks for the consideration!

Chris333 »

Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ifeelfine,

"Enjoy your vacation."

Thanks, I did!

"the onus is on us to prove God's existance."

No, this is a myth, a very sad myth, but a myth nonetheless. The burden of proof is equally on both the atheist and theist. Both are asserting a certain worldview, which must be accounted for. What is more, theism has always been (and still is) the predominant view, therefore the newer, or less acclaimed view almost always should present their argument first. (i.e. if in metaphysics one were to claim that electrons do NOT exist, then the burden of proof would follow heavily on such a person. Even though they are asserting a negative, it goes against evidence, experience, and accepted theory)

"Obviously Hume doesn't feel God in his / her life "

Possibly, or Hume has ignored it or convinced himself that it cannot be God.

"its not like your wife where you can see her - she's there (you can engage your senses and prove it)."

But my seeing her doesn't make her anymore real, even if she were 3000 miles away I would still believe she existed and was real. I might only be able to write letters to her, or talk on the phone, but I would still believe she was real. I have experienced God in my life, and I do have a relationship with Him. I do not have to "see" Him in order to believe in Him.

"you cannot prove God's existance - that is why it requires faith."

True, but you cannot even prove that you are really a person, you could be a brain being tested in scientific experiments made to believe that this is all real. It requires some faith to do virtually anything, even if we don't realize it. The faith may be of a different kind with God, but I do not believe it is any weaker.

"Those things are real and certainly enough evidence for some to have faith! :)"

You are correct, but Hume doesn't want that, nor should he be satisfied with it. My experiences have some weight in a veridical sense, but my goal here is to show Hume that sensory perception is not the only means by which we can know something to be true.

Good to hear from you again ifeelfine.

Hume »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

sbs: That was deep, man.

Hume »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Adam: What kind of proof would convince you that God does not exist?

sbs »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

So many arguments. So many premises. So many words. In the end, too many of us who define ourselves as Christians are Scripturely illiterate and prayer free. We apply human trappings to Jesus like unbelievers, and thus cannot state the truth of who He was and is. Truly tragic for the Christian faith and the world.

Adam »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume, help me understand you. You come on this chat and harp on christians to provide conclusive evidence that God exists, yet you hold to an atheistical worldview despite having no conlusive evidence that what YOU believe is true.

That's why these fancy conversations bore me. Because no one ever says what is REALLY going on. You operate from a premise that you only believe what you have evidence for, yet you CLEARLY hold to an atheistical worldview without a shread of conclusive evidence. You say christians have blind faith, but you have no conclusive evidence that God does not exist, yet you choose to believe that. Why should I take you seriously as a genuine truth-seeker? You know what you want to be true, and that's the end of it.

You have no conclusive proof of what you believe. I would rather you be honest that you are just really offended by the idea of a God who will judge your life than try to sell yourself as a legitimate truth-seeker.

ifeelfine72 »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Gen1_28: I get what you're saying and I think I agree with it but we might be talking about two different things. If someone doesn't believe, doesn't open their heart to believe, we have to do what we can to show them evidence for God in our lives. Obviously it cannot be proven - I've said that many times myself. It comes down to faith! :)

Hume »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333: Have a good vacation, but remember to bring me back lots of objective evidence, or I won't believe you ever left!;-) I've got a big post ready, but I am going to wait for you to get back to put it up.

seedplanter: What does the beginning of modern science in a Christian-dominated culture 400-odd years ago have to do with the credibility of Christianity in 2008? Atheists aren't trying to take credit for the development of modern science; what matters is that it works, and it works whether the person doing it personally believes in gods or not.

seedplanter »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chris, have a great vacation! As much time as you spend on here debating skeptics, she is probably quite anxious to get outta town.

seedplanter »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"...it is a matter of God being the standard for good."

Chris this seems to be a constant misinterpretation among atheists and skeptics.

One of the problems that I see among the many militant atheists on CP and elsewhere is that they expect Christian theists to bow down to their epistemology of empiricism, regardless of its limitations. Of course they assume the position that they are invincible to presuppositions, while it is Christians who are brainwashed idiots. They pretend to have science in their pocket as if science is something of a religious relic of atheism. While atheists may dominate the hard sciences, it certainly did not give rise to modern science. The religious belief of atheism hardly contributes to anything save pessimism.

Gen1_28 »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

ifeelfine72,

I must disagree. It is not up to us to prove God's existence. It is up to the Christian to be obedient to God. This means living our lives by bringing every area into obedience to God and his word.

Furthermore, it would be impossible for any man to prove or disprove God. To prove something means you must be judge over it to decide if it is or is not. Man is not over God and cannot judge God. As much as we might like that (remember Adam in the Garden-) it is not our place. As scripture tells us, the evidence for God is proclaimed by God throughout all creation. We, God's creation, are to proclaim God. It is not up to us to prove God.

We see evidence for God the same way we see evidence for the wind (either that or the bush outside my window is coming after me!) Again - the evidence for God is obvious as Chris333 has pointed out. And as you said, it takes faith.

Maybe Hume will never "see God" - but that is not our problem. Our duty is to be obedient to God and his commands. I think every one here has tried to clearly show the evidence for God in nature, in personal convictions, and in philosophical rhetoric. I just hope we all continue to strive to live out God's commands in our own life.

Hume- It was educational to read your opinions. Keep up the questions.

ifeelfine72 »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chris: Junebug is right, the onus is on us to prove God's existance. Obviously Hume doesn't feel God in his / her life and because its not like your wife where you can see her - she's there (you can engage your senses and prove it). Here is the issue though, you cannot prove God's existance - that is why it requires faith. If there were proof, faith would not be necessary - everyone would just see Him and say "yup, there's God." It doesn't work that way, faith is required.

But you can describe your experiences with God. And show how He is real in your life and talk about what He's done for you. Those things are real and certainly enough evidence for some to have faith! :)

Enjoy your vacation.

Chris333 »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Junebug,

Keep up the good work, apologetics is a rough field and it is constantly changing and growing, but it is also exciting. I don't base my belief on my defenses, rather I base my defenses on what has been manifested in my life time and again, and that is important to keep in mind. I am going on a vaction for a week with my wife and her family, so I won't be commenting for a while, but I am sure you will do fine without me.

Hume,

Sorry if you don't believe that I and my wife are going on a vacation, I am not too concerned with proving it (haha). In any case, go over my arguments and give it good thought, as I am sure you will do. I will check the post when I get back, but I am afraid you will have forgotten about it in a week, (that is how these things go). In any case, take care and it has been fun debating with you.

Chris333 »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume (continued)

"If you’ve got objective, physical evidence you should present it"

This is not the debate we are in, we are debating whether God can exist apart from sensory perception. In any case, I take a similar tract as William Lane Craig, he presents five arguments for the existence of God, (1) Cosmological argument, (2) Teleological argument, (3) Morality argument, (4) Historical evidence in the Resurrection, and (5) Experential argument.

If you want to see a good debate between him and Anthony Flew (who takes a line of reasoning largely based upon Hume's works) then you can buy the book. I don't want to go into detail with them. Suffice it to say that they still stand, and the best atheist philosophers have not taken them down.

"No marriage certificate, no wedding ring, no joint bank accounts, no joint tax return..."

But I could show you all these "evidences" just like I can show you all the prayers in my own life answered, and the arguments presented above. Sure we don't have a "picture" of God, but we do have Him coming to earth in the form of Christ, and many reasons why our faith is at least reasonable. Even still, even if you did feel justified in not believing I am married to my wife, that shouldn't matter to me, I know what I have, whether you accept it or not.

Now the burden of proof is on you to disprove my relationship with God, so far you have just said, "It cannot be" or "It is not likely" this gives me about as much reason to doubt my beliefs as it would to doubt my relationship with my wife.

Chris333 »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume,

"you’ve had experiences you are subjectively interpreting as god."

How do you know? I suppose you would say the experiences with my wife are subjective as well? You must be God to know so much about what I have experienced and what is genuine and what is not. Again I would not take you seriously if you said my experiences with my wife are not real, why should I take you seriously regarding my relationship with God?

Your position on God just "blocking" immoral actions is not freewill. For instance, what if I told you that you can do whatever you want, and then you say, "Oh great!" And you decide to go to Mc Donalds to get a hamburger, but before you leave I poke holes in your tires. Then you say, "What? You said I could do anything you want!" And then I say, "Yeah that is right" So then you decide to walk to Mc Donalds, but I steal your shoes and burn them. Then you decide to walk there barefoot, but I put spikes on the ground... and then, well you get the point. We do not call this freedom, how much more if God constantly does it? You have provided a perfect example of not free will.

"If god is the source of morals, then god would be “good” no matter what he did, because god can define good in any way he likes."

Missed again, no the idea is that "God is good" therefore it is not a matter of God "changing Himself" and making bad good, it is a matter of God being the standard for good. Sure God could have created a world where rape was good and love was bad, but that would have been against who God is. Christians also believe that God is not contradictory. Also, we could say that a yard is the new meter, but that would not change the standard meter bar. You are making God into a big person, but you forget that God is holy, thus He is the standard. Holy cannot do what is unholy, your point is refuted.

junebug »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oops! I meant "one stance" for the religion and science scholars!

junebug »

Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume,

You might be interested [or might not be!] in reading some works by Ian Barbour and Michael Ruse. Many of these scholars and believers do not just take on stance in the religion/science conflict!

And I only compare God to these fictional characters because thats how you see Him as. I knew that in doing so there was a risk for your argument back, but as Chris333 argues, I have my proof and the disbelief of others does not change that.

I cannot begin to get into apologetics here because I am so incredibly lacking in that area [maybe in a few years?] but I find it difficult for one to deny Jesus Christ even existed!

The fact that time alone is broken down into B.C. and A.D. revolving around Jesus Christ I think, is pretty important! Time is such a powerful thing and what our lives literally revolve around. But we also revolve around the sun too. The Son? [I love using that pun!] But as for Jesus, He is viewed as a historical figure. Historians and archaeologists do not consider His existence to be a myth! Why, I was just watching studies on Him on the History channel the other day and not once did they even show any sign of seeing Him as anything more then an actual historical concrete man. So I couldn't really understand so maybe you aren't denying His existence. But you did say you find Jesus as described in the Bible a myth. So then what Jesus do you believe? Do you doubt His death as well? Because that is just as historical. His birth as conceived by the Holy Ghost and the resurrection usually is the issue more people find to be mythical and if you are waiting for concrete evidence of that as you would wait for Nicole Kidman to walk out, then I'm sorry you probably will never get it.

If I am trying to tell you something and show you something from across the room, you probably won't hear me. So to hear me and to know what I am saying, to see what I have, would require getting close to me. That is just physical nature, no? Then if you are waiting to see what proof God has for you and what He has to tell you requires you to get close to Him. Because He's trying, this whole article and slew of comments makes that evident. The fact that you even first made a comment shows something to me to be honest. And no matter how many times you deny Him, argue against Him, try to convince others He does not exist, He will continue to try and get close to you and if you want to see, you must get closer to Him as well. There are messengers in between Him and you trying to relay anything they can, but it also requires you to open an ear, open your heart, open your eyes and truly see.

junebug »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333

Oops. I definitely agree that God always understands us. I just meant that relationships are difficult because sometimes one cannot understand the other as I cannot always understand God's purpose or meaning. But I agree, that He always does understand is there for us. I should have worded that better! Thanks for the encouragement! As for Hume, after taking a course on religion and science in my undergrad as well as a religion and philosophy course, I came to try and open my mind to unbelievers belief. Because not believing requires faith against God [which I even read in an awesome article right here on cp!] and before I decided to enter seminary to teach His word and His people, I knew I must understand them [people and unbelievers]. They do have the logic and arguments that make so many chain to those false beliefs and I believe that this world has created this false belief that is wrapped up in so much logic that for many, it is difficult to understand otherwise. And trust me, I get frustrated! Hearing people deny Jesus Christ hurts so very much, so so very much. But Jesus died just as much for them and I am just trying to understand and in doing so, realize how difficult it is for them to see the truth and that hurts so very much as well. That Jesus Christ endured such suffering for people only to deny He even existed... and for those who deny to not be able to witness His glory, His beauty, His name [which I think we can both agree is an amazing and beautiful thing]. But keep up the good work, Chris333! I really like your arguments [especially these analogies!].

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Why was my previous post flagged?

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Junebug: If Nicole Kidman did appear, there would be the kinds of physical, concrete evidence that we agree Christians have yet to produce. Australia, likewise, has that kind of evidence for its existence. You and Adam both have compared god to aliens, bigfoot, mermaids, etc. Adam, I think, has already made clear that he believes in those creatures (in addition to psychic phenomena), but you point to fictional stories as examples, where the “just missed it” scene is done for dramatic effect. Both of you are correct that god is comparable in terms of evidence to these creatures, and yet I would guess that many Christians do not believe in them with the same kind of vigor that they do in their god, if they believe in them at all. When a person decides to start believing in the supernatural and exotic beasts that likewise lack verifiable evidence, there is no objective, principled place to stop, even when you get into contradictions. Faith cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood, the way science, logic, and evidence can.

A relationship can be any way you want it to be…when it’s an idea in your head, rather than a external phenomena involving another physical person. As I say, faith has no ability to determine what is real and what isn’t.

When I say that Jesus is a myth, I mean that he is a life-death-rebirth deity character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity) involved in a sacred story believed to be true by its adherents, but I also mean it in the more popular sense that it is equally as credible as Greek mythology, which few believe to be true. The short answer to your question is that I have no reason to believe that “Jesus” as described in the bible existed at all.

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Adam: On the contrary, I fully understand that there are a great many things as yet unexplained by science. That means we don’t know about them or why they are the way they are. That isn’t a license to start believing in spirit realms, anymore than it was when people thought that diseases were caused by god as punishment for immorality, rather than microbes.

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333 (continued),

“You have missed the mark in this section of your argument. God is the standard for morality, He is completely good and powerful and the ultimate source of morals. An earthly example would be the standard meter bar in france (I believe it is in France), this bar defines what the length of a meter is, it is the standard for the meter. In the same way God is the standard for morality, He is the standard by which we can know and discern morals, and by which morals actually exist.”

If god is the source of morals, then god would be “good” no matter what he did, because god can define good in any way he likes. The word “good” becomes, as I said “whatever god wants” and that’s subjective, relativistic morality. It’s still “might makes right” and you can’t proclaim an objective morality and then say “might makes right” is ok for god, but not for humans. If you reject relativistic morality, you have to reject Christianity, or admit that there is no such thing as objective morality for anyone, Christians included, whether you want to believe that or not.

“Regarding your Nicole Kidman allusion, in the case you have described, I would be completely making it up, and even forging evidence. This is completely unrelated to my case. There is good evidence for God aside from my relationship with Him, and I have had a real relationship with Him.”

If you’ve got objective, physical evidence you should present it, otherwise, all you’ve got is the subjectivism that you otherwise reject.

“Let me turn this around on you, suppose I am claiming that I have had a relationship with my wife (not Nicole Kidman) and I am separated from her, I show you pictures of her, I tell you I talk on the phone with her each night, and I tell you that we have been married for years. But you say, "No, I do not believe it Chris333, you are making it up, the pictures are fakes, and you just think you are talking to her on the phone, really you just want a relationship with her so badly that you believe you are talking to her, you only are pretending to be married to her" Why on earth should I change my position? I know exactly what has happened, and I am as sure of my relationship with my wife as I am of anything else. Your denying it means nothing, except for that you are willfully being ignorant.”

Let’s suppose you were going all out to prove that this woman existed and was your wife. If all you could show were a few photos and your testimony, I would be fully justified in not believing you. No marriage certificate, no wedding ring, no joint bank accounts, no joint tax return…there are so many pieces of evidence that result from a marriage that not presenting any other than some photos would be highly suspicious. I’m not being willfully ignorant, you are vastly overestimating the relative value of your proposed evidence. With god, you don’t even have the photos.

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333,

“Second, subjective experience would be saying something like, "Well if you believe your experience was from God then it was from God" But I was not saying something like that. I was saying that I have experienced God in my life and I have no reason to deny this experience in my life no more than I would deny my experience with my wife.”

No, you’ve had experiences you are subjectively interpreting as god. Others interpret the same experiences in their lives to be coincidence, physically-caused, or the result of gods different from your own. Since you can’t prove them wrong, you have no warrant for calling your own experiences “the Christian god.” I have all I need to sustain my position that your experience doesn’t have any necessary relation to your view of god any more than it supports any other god.

“An interesting position, however it is not addressing my proposition, I stated that without God objective morals would not exist, and you have not shown that they can exist. In any case I will address what you have posted. First, God does not "trust" us, rather He "allows" us to act either morally or immorally, if He didn't then there would not be free choice. However, if we believe in the Christian idea of God, then even though God allows us to act immorally for a time, He does judge us eventually and make things right. In the Christian view, if a man rapes a woman and gets away with it then he will still have to pay for that action, in the atheist view the man doesn't have to pay for anything. I doubt that he has even done something immoral to begin with if God does not exist, the only reason he would have to pay, is if a stronger person or people could make him pay.”

There are multitudes of ways to prevent crimes and other immoralities before they is committed without infringing on free choice. As long as whatever it is happens after the choice is made to commit the crime, free choice is preserved. It could be something as simple as a rock flying up to block every gunshot that is fired, every knife suddenly going dull when used in an immoral way, a person who is about to be attacked by someone with just their fists finding themselves fifty miles away just before the blows land, computers locking up without any explanation when being used to look at child porn or to embezzle funds…you get the idea. Worse for you, if you choose instead to argue that god can’t do that because that suffering is necessary for “god’s plan,” then you’ve just argued that murder, rape, and other immoral acts are GOOD from god’s perspective! Like I said, Christian morality is as subjective as any morality ever considered.

agentorangex »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333,

“In the Christian view, if a man rapes a woman and gets away with it then he will still have to pay for that action, in the atheist view the man doesn't have to pay for anything.”

We are all responsible for our actions and believing in god or not, evolution or not, doesn’t negate our responsibility in the here and how. The belief in god or not doesn’t excuse ones actions either way as we still have to deal with the punishments of being caught in the here and now. If simply everyone were believers, then you could argue there would be no sense in having laws as in the end god would be the judge accordingly. However, in light of most people being believers, they still commit crimes and therefore punishment in the here and now is required for society to fuction.

In the atheists view, we don’t have any fear mongering of eternal damnation lurking, and yet for the most part like all other members of society we’re quite moral. Why be good if we don’t have to? For me, it’s b/c I view it in a more philosophical sense in that my actions have opposite correlating re-actions and I don’t want to live in a system where everyone is breaking laws and therefore I don’t feed into this system of corruption. Call it a sense of Karma.

‘I doubt that he has even done something immoral to begin with if God does not exist, the only reason he would have to pay, is if a stronger person or people could make him pay.”

And that Chris is exactly what our laws are here to do. They are used to enforce certain behavior by encouraging and discouraging and those that disobey are adjudicated according to how we deem the law fits the penalty.

agentorangex »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Adam,

“And whenever science tries to say there is no supernatural world, that's when I know it's wrong, and it's being fueled by an agenda."

The reason Science doesn’t invoke the super natural (god) is b/c science relies on physically, observable, repeatedly testable, falsifiable evidence. Using ‘god made it that way’ is therefore not falsifiable and thus NOT science. Refer to the scientific method. You earlier made the erroneous claim that a ‘theory’ in Science is the same as laymen’s use it, well it’s not. Context matters.

”The oddest thing to me is to see grown adults who don't believe that the supernatural world is breaking in on us all the time.”

Right. You see a silhouette of Mary in a burnt piece of toast and this is crowned evidence?

”I don't even need the Bible to believe in the supernatural. I can get online and in 5 minutes find evidence of the supernatural in our world. Psychics, witch doctors, voo-doo.“

So there is REAL evidence from reputable sources for psychics, witch doctors, and voo-doo, Big Foot, Leprechauns, Elves, Pixes, and Unicorns now? This I got to here. I can’t believe you compared your supernatural belief of god to other non-credited supernatural things, horrid logic.

"Just pick something, please, ANYTHING... but don't keep living this fairy tale existence that your high-minded ideas carry any real weight in reality.'

Right, after all, all those 'high-minded ideas' allow you communicate via the Internet at this very moment.

“When are you going to talk about the SPIRIT?”

When are you going to show evidence for this ‘spirit’ to accept and believe in the first place?

Chris333 »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Junebug,

Interesting opinions, but I think you give too much ground to Hume, ground that he has not earned. Stay strong in your faith though. The only thing I would directly confront with you is that you claim that at times every relationship has a moment where the two persons do not understand each other, if God exists as we believe Him to exist, then He always understands us and what we need, and in fact, we always do not fully understand God (rather we only understand what He has revealed).

Chris333 »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume (continued)

"Shouldn't Christianity find an objective standard of morality for itself before complaining about subjectivity in other worldviews?"

You have missed the mark in this section of your argument. God is the standard for morality, He is completely good and powerful and the ultimate source of morals. An earthly example would be the standard meter bar in france (I believe it is in France), this bar defines what the length of a meter is, it is the standard for the meter. In the same way God is the standard for morality, He is the standard by which we can know and discern morals, and by which morals actually exist.

Regarding your Nicole Kidman allusion, in the case you have described, I would be completely making it up, and even forging evidence. This is completely unrelated to my case. There is good evidence for God aside from my relationship with Him, and I have had a real relationship with Him.

Let me turn this around on you, suppose I am claiming that I have had a relationship with my wife (not Nicole Kidman) and I am separated from her, I show you pictures of her, I tell you I talk on the phone with her each night, and I tell you that we have been married for years. But you say, "No, I do not believe it Chris333, you are making it up, the pictures are fakes, and you just think you are talking to her on the phone, really you just want a relationship with her so badly that you believe you are talking to her, you only are pretending to be married to her" Why on earth should I change my position? I know exactly what has happened, and I am as sure of my relationship with my wife as I am of anything else. Your denying it means nothing, except for that you are willfully being ignorant.

Chris333 »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume,

"Doesn't consistency require you to reject this subjective experience just as you reject subjective ethics?"

Absolutely not! I do not believe in subjective experience any more than I believe in subjective ethics. First, I did not say that experience equaled proof (given that the experience is a certain kind), Second, subjective experience would be saying something like, "Well if you believe your experience was from God then it was from God" But I was not saying something like that. I was saying that I have experienced God in my life and I have no reason to deny this experience in my life no more than I would deny my experience with my wife. You cannot say, "Well others believe contradictory things" As if it is a contradiction of my position. You can however challenge my experiences, but I doubt you want to do that, you seem to want to doubt that experience counts for anything, well I have to say that I cannot see how you are going to sustain that position.

" If you believe your god can trust human beings to make what you consider the most important choice ever, why is it so terrible if the situation is human beings making godless moral choices based on environment and an envolved desire to survive?"

An interesting position, however it is not addressing my proposition, I stated that without God objective morals would not exist, and you have not shown that they can exist. In any case I will address what you have posted. First, God does not "trust" us, rather He "allows" us to act either morally or immorally, if He didn't then there would not be free choice. However, if we believe in the Christian idea of God, then even though God allows us to act immorally for a time, He does judge us eventually and make things right. In the Christian view, if a man rapes a woman and gets away with it then he will still have to pay for that action, in the atheist view the man doesn't have to pay for anything. I doubt that he has even done something immoral to begin with if God does not exist, the only reason he would have to pay, is if a stronger person or people could make him pay.

Adam »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ole Hume,

The problem with this conversation is that you and I think we live in different worlds. Your world is made up of fancy concepts, rulers, scientific methods. Mine is made up of that, too, but it is also made up of the supernatural, which science is no good for. And whenever science tries to say there is no supernatural world, that's when I know it's wrong, and it's being fueled by an agenda.

The oddest thing to me is to see grown adults who don't believe that the supernatural world is breaking in on us all the time. It's like looking at an ostrich with it's head buried in the sand.

And you may say, "well, if science can't measure it, then I don't believe it." Or maybe something about "the synapses in the brain..."

And so you gut your world of everything that science can't explain and pretend to live in a nice and neat, completely explainable reality, where you know all the answers.

What is really going on with you guys?

I don't even need the Bible to believe in the supernatural. I can get online and in 5 minutes find evidence of the supernatural in our world. Psychics, witch doctors, voo-doo. Just pick something, please, ANYTHING... but don't keep living this fairy tale existence that your high-minded ideas carry any real weight in reality.

Take a trip to Africa, or the Carribbean, and see for yourself witch doctors that curse and kill people through enchantments. If you're really such a truth seeker, then here is an invitation into it. It's sloppy, and it's scary, but it's exhilirating. You were made not just of skin and bones, but spirit, too.

So all these pretty words are a yawn to me. When are you going to start talking about the true reality of our existence? When are you going to talk about the SPIRIT?

junebug »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume,

Your comments are arguments are very strong and I can clearly understand why you and many think this way. It just makes sense! It's so logical, and God... is not. Believers acknowledge this. And it is so hard for us to make our arguments without the concrete evidence and reasoning before us as many reductionists and other non-believers may have. Yet I would like to go back to the original comments where you referred to Jesus as a myth. I am curious, what do you find mythical? Is it His existence, His role as the Son of God, His death? That is something I would like to know.

Your Nicole Kidman analogy is a great one. Yet what happens if and when Nicole Kidman really does show up out of nowhere? And hangs on to Chris333's side? See Chris333 [or whoever is stating Kidman is their wife] isn't so clueless to realize that they may appear foolish or strange for stating something that others cannot see. But they state it because they KNOW for themselves it is true, so risking that foolish appearance is of no element in comparison. I like this argument, so I want to continue. So many times [especially in children's movies] there is something like this. A child sees something, knows something, yet no one, not even family, will believe them. And in the end this thing [whether it be an alien, a seamonster, a mermaid, WHATEVER] appears and many are in shock and awe [yes I know we're talking about children's movies here, where am I possibly going with this... a child's movie is not the best argument to make]. BUT in the end there are always some who just happen to miss seeing the phenomenon. They rush into the scene when it is too late and they miss seeing it "with their own eyes" and wonder what all the fuss is about. They did not see it with their own eyes, does that mean it never happened? I have never seen Australia with my own eyes. Does that mean it is not real?

And I acknowledge that many serve this world and people without God as the foundation for it. But for me, that is my reason and motivation. God is not a puppet-master/controller over this world but He is so much more. He is grace and love and desires a personal relationship with each of us. And any relationship is difficult; it requires trust, communication, and understanding. Times when one cannot understand the other and so forth. But I believe God to be so personal and so real in my life and my adoration for Him because of that relationship I have with Him is what drives me!

And you ask what if God isn't the real God and yet there is another deity getting angry with me. Well, that argument would require some supernatural being to be in existence. So I ask, do you deny just God the Trinity or all gods? Which goes back to my first question of what part of Jesus do you find to be a myth?

I'll end with that for now!

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333: Also, the correct comparison with your belief that god exists and that you have a relationship with it is not your wife, but Nicole Kidman. Suppose you went around claiming that you were romantically involved with Nicole Kidman, but she never appears with you anywhere. You'd go to nightclubs and your friends would ask you where Nicole was. You'd claim she was in the bathroom, but nobody sees her there, and the doorman says you came in alone. You say you have a scrapbook of photos with her, but on further examination they are newspaper and magazine clippings with your face pasted into them. Your belief that you have a relationship with her makes you very happy, and she's given you the confidence to go out and get a good job because if Nicole Kidman is for you, who can be against you? Given this state of affairs, is it more reasonable that you do or don't have a romantic relationship with Nicole Kidman?

Hume »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chris333: You know, for all your disdain for relativists-because you don't like subjective ethics- you don't seem to have a problem with subjective epistemology. Your "seeing god work in your life" is just your interpretation of events, and others would see coincidence and no connection between the events you interpret at all. Doesn't consistency require you to reject this subjective experience just as you reject subjective ethics?

You make individual choice in the field of morality (without reference to a god) sound scary and bad, but isn't it true that that same godless choice is a prime feature of Christianity? I think you all call it "free will," and by definition your god is thought not to intervene in it one way or the other, so its just as godless as if you didn't believe in god at all. If you believe your god can trust human beings to make what you consider the most important choice ever, why is it so terrible if the situation is human beings making godless moral choices based on environment and an envolved desire to survive?

Moreover, Christianity is completely subjective in ethics as well. Morality is whatever god says...that's Christian ethics. There is no objective standard there, just one beings opinion. You believer god is all-powerful and completely authoritative...what's to stop him from declaring murder and rape ok tomorrow? Shouldn't Christianity find an objective standard of morality for itself before complaining about subjectivity in other worldviews?

Chris333 »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume,

It depends on the type of experience one experiences as to whether I would consider it a proof of anything or not. My position has always been that the mind must be able to reasonably believe in something. For instance, I can look at my wife, and fully believe that she is another mind similar to my own, however I have very little way of proving this. I could be dreaming now, I could be a brain in a scientists experiment being caused to believe she exists, or any other number of possibilities. But I don't believe in such things, rather I believe she is another 'mind' like my own, primarily because I have experienced life with her.

Of course there are many physical reasons why I believe this also, but I think my main 'proof' if you will, is my experience being with her.

In the same way, there are many arguments for the existence of God, and atheists have done a very poor job of disproving God, and as well, I do have a relationship with God and can clearly see God working in my life. (certainly I could be "fooling" myself in some instances, but I see no reason to believe that is true). I would not deny my wife's role in my own life, without good reason to believe that it is false.

Regarding morality, if it is simply a physical reaction as you seem to suggest, then this certainly does not help your case! It would not be morally right or wrong to rape a child, it would only possibly go against a neuron in ones brain. But this does not always seem to be the case. Crime is rampant, and people are being raped and killed everyday. There is no reason, based upon the argument you have given, that I should not simply assume that this is the natural state of man, and that rather than trying to suppress it, we should try to liberate it, so that we can find the true "morals". For instance, if we found that most men were more inclined to be violent and oppressive towards women, then we would assume that it was a societally created norm to respect women. We would have a problem of choosing between what "neurons" say, and what society says. Which is right? Only the INDIVIDUAL can tell. Thus you have given us a perfect example of individual relativism. (please deny this, it is hard for me to take relativists seriously).

steveh20 »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris, always good to hear from you. It's bedtime in good old Brighty, what I would say is that I appreciate that my position is a difficult one with no certainties. You are quite rght to point out what you say about societies choosing what is right and wrong; It's a very comforting position position to ascert that there is a supreme being who dictates what is right and wrong, however, even with the problems it brings, its is something I cannot accept. I suspect that whilst not agreeing with, you will accept my honesty.
Steve

Hume »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Adam: Your pastor is a funny guy (I assume you stole that joke from him).

Hume »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Chris333, again: Ok, if you don't consider those experiences proof (since that is what you seem to be implying) how do you know those other faiths are false and yours is right? You can't say faith, since those other faiths have faith that you are wrong, and you can't all be right. Therefore, faith is not able to say what is true and false.

As for the brain and evolution, our brains make a great many mistakes. For example, they have a tendency to project current feelings into memories of the past, and are very bad at predicting how future bad events will actually feel. They also omit important details from memory. Their pattern recognition software sometimes finds patterns even where those patterns don't exist. They can attribute agency to movement (this may have been a predator sensing mechanism originally), when there is no agent. These features are indeed the result of evolution.

Hume »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333: I'll reply to you and CP2000 at the same time, since I missed CP's response the first time. It's not just society that is the cause of morality, although that is crucial since morality is indeed what enables societies to be sustained. The cause is likely physical. Scientists may have discovered the neurons in the brain that result in empathy, the ability to understand how another feels. This is a key component of morality, I'm sure you would agree. Give that, it seems irresponsible to speculate about the supernatural, when the physical has barely begun to be explored.

junebug: I congratulate you on your expanded moral concern, but I see nothing in it requiring a deity. You gain increased compassion, joy, purpose and a feeling of being alive. Those are emotions. They come from your brain, not a god.

I am curious to know whether you've considered the risk you are taking. You are risking the possibility that the god you believe in is not the god that exists, and that the one that does exist is very annoyed with you for getting it wrong. So you see, you are exposed to just as much supposed risk of being wrong as I am in not believing. Do you therefore intend to believe in all the gods, even the ones that get annoyed with you for believing in any other than themself, and if so, how do you propose to do this?

Adam »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Evolution: Even Atheists Are Getting Religion!

Even though the fall-back argument of all scientists is, "well, we don't try to answer 'why,'" that's exactly what they have achieved with Evolution. They've found a "why"! It's an atheistical worldview. And because their worldview is essentially based on a THEORY, I think it's only fair to call it a religion.

And here is the evolution religion's grand revelation: EVERYTHING IS AN ACCIDENT. That is the core belief construct.

If you would set aside all the fancy-sounding, high-minded "hows" that prop up this religion and just look at the concluded "why," it takes no time to realize that something is dreadfully wrong. An accident? All of this? Everything? Wait, the universe... an accident?

How did I end up in a society that actually believes such fairy tales?

Gut check time: I guess it just really comes down to how much you don't want to believe in a Supreme Being that is going to hold you accountable for your life.

Good luck with that, really.

Chris333 »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Steve,

interesting position, yet you seem to have destroyed objective morals in your very attempt to salvage them. Simply basing morality on what works for society is no indication of anything. Slavery worked for society at one point, and actually may have benefited society, does this make it right at that point? What about women oppression? We could come to the decision that genetic defects are detrimental to society and cause unnecessary expenditure and therefore people born with genetic defects should be killed. You were spot on when you said, "Who gets to set the rules?" Who does get to set the rules? The Furher, the dictator, the President, the majority? Certainly not! What about scientists? Perhaps they know what is best for society, so we should just accept what they say, but we have already seen that science doesn't comment on matters of right and wrong. How large a society, before it can start deciding for itself what is right and wrong? This is societal relativism, and in my opinion is only a delay to personal relativism.

Even if we could establish objective morals without God (I have never seen a good explanation of this, and am doubtful), why should anyone care?

Chris333 »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hume,

(1) The Christian faith does not exclude other people of "false" faiths to have genuine experiences of something spiritual. Indeed the Bible is clear that miracles would be performed and false prophets would arise. In any case, there are phenomena that are not explained by science or natural explanations.

(2) I did not mean to say that an experience of God is a proof of God, I merely meant to say that just because we may not be able to "feel" God the way you described, does not mean anything in regards to whether God is true or not.

(3) The phenomena experienced need not be based upon emotions or "inner feelings" it can very well be objective, rational experience. But your bringing this up highlites and interesting point, our brains are actually designed (or evolved, whichever you prefer) to believe in God and the supernatural, and this can be evidenced in persons with a certain braindamage, or autistic people who have difficulty believing in something supernatural. Why would we be this way if belief in God is not supposed to be? Did evolution make a mistake?

steveh20 »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hello CP2008
Though not addressed to me I hope you will not think me rude if I gave my opinion on your comment below. I don't think science can define right or wrong as science is a way of arriving at various theories which make sense (until something better comes along)of the world about us. Religion in its various guises declares that various modes of behaviour are either right or wrong, so far so good. That falls apart though if there is no such being to under gurd these "rules". All I'm saying is that science is not an arbitruer of right or wrong but with ( in my opinion) no supreme being to back them up, religion is no basis for morality either. The next question is where do we go from here then? My guess is that societies that are succesfull are those that reconise that certain standards of behaviour are required for it to run smoothly etc..of course we then come to questions such as who sets those rules etc..

junebug »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:44 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

But you see, Hume, so many random strangers, including I myself, are taking a stand in arguing for God. Not because we need to as if our arguments can or will change anything, but because Jesus Christ is so personal to us, someone that is such a huge part of our lives, it is as if hearing an insult or seeing a slap to our best friend, savior, redeemer, and father [as the original Jesus looked like].

We also leave our comments in hopes, dire hopes, that you might see and open your eyes to the grace that Jesus Christ brought to this world. Because in the end, if we are wrong, what is there to lose? So we spent our lives trusting and having faith which brought so much joy and hope in our lives. It did not ultimately hurt us. You may think we just appeared foolish, but it brought fellowship among strangers, taught us to forgive and love, and guides us in our struggles. But say you are wrong, then I am truly sorry. And I do not intend for that to sound condescending [I realize making apologies to strangers on the internet tends to sound that way] but I really am. Faith is illogical, I know that, but Jesus says with faith the size of a mustard seed mountains can be moved. George Washington, upon finding our country, started off with a prayer. With his faith, he changed the entire world!

And just to respond to your comment on my activities... it does not make sense that I gain anything out of serving. I serve teenagers who honestly, used to scare me. I did not think I would be able to devote a portion of my life to them but somehow a burden and compassion has been placed in my heart for them. So no, it is not the activities, but it is God bringing this indescribable joy. Yes studying His word and serving these youth have become something awesome and amazing for me, but it was God who showed me this way and since I have started, I have only felt more alive, more with purpose, since.

A few hours early, but happy Easter everyone! A time to rejoice!

I do appreciate that you take the time to respond to each and everyone's comments. You are very fair!

Hume »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

junebug: I think you'll find that if you go on doing what you because they are good things to do, rather than because god told you to, you'll find that it is the activities that make you happy, and they do not require the existence of a god to have that effect.

Hume »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Gratus: I think I'll take my chances.

Hume »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Tom: I think you are right: you CAN find Jesus just about anywhere, if you want to look for him. But perhaps your desire to find him will lead you to see him where he doesn't really exist, like a mirage in the desert. The idea of Jesus exists, that is true, but consider the possibility that he is just an idea, without external reference.

Our brains are likely wired to see agency where it does not exist, and then that unseen agency gets interpreted according to culture and certain mental rules (which determine which beliefs will spread and be accepted and which will die), and that is where belief in the supernatural originally came from.

Hume »

Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333: If you say you have a genuine experience of god, I would ask you what it is like and how you can know (or have faith) that your experience was "god." Buddhists are said to have out-of-the-ordinary experience, but they do not believe in "god" the way you do, and so do not interpret what they experience as you do. Pagans have such experiences, but the gods they attribute them to are completely different from yours. I know that Christians consider faith a virtue, but in this context, "faith" would seem to be code for ignoring the culture-centeredness of your interpretation.

Science has come up with ways to induce the kinds of experiences you describe by stimulating portions of the brain with electrical impulses, so your experience is likely real. Your pre-conceived desire to interpret the experience as "god" is, well...superstitious.