73 replies to this topic

[The Warrior]

 

Every man is sinful. We were born into sin and therefore all have fallen short of God's glory. The RCC is, of course, no exception. The actions that we are referring to here are completely unacceptable by all accounts and unfortunately you will find people that do these sort of deplorable acts in all walks of life. These actions were clearly against what the RCC preaches and were the direct result of sin. No one can always claim the moral high ground because we are all plagued by sin.
 
Having said that, I am going to make a general observation that you probably won't agree with and that's fine. Even though all are sinful and constantly fall short of God's glory, those who hold certain Christian beliefs do tend to have a firmer moral compass than those who don't. Is it true of everyone? No, because like I said we are all sinful, but those who hold these beliefs generally hold themselves to a certain higher standard or should anyway.

You know, I was thinking about this, and I mean no disrespect, but don't you think that the person who does good deeds because s/he wants to make the world a better place is more moral/ethical than the person who does good deeds to avoid going to hell? In that sense, isn't the atheist who performs for the greater good, rather than personal gain, i.e. avoiding hell, holding himself/herself to a higher standard? Also, isn't morality subjective, depending upon society?

 

 

From Paul's letter to the church of Ephesus:

 

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

 

Helping others in need is certainly a noteworthy and kind thing to do. However, it is not one's works that ultimately save them or condemn them so the motivation of "not going to hell" doesn't actually qualify as a motivating factor.

 

Lutherans believe that because of what Christ did for us (all people), we too should give of ourselves to help others because of the gift we have been given. It has nothing to do with hoping that we can do enough good deeds to avoid going to hell. Faith in God's grace through Jesus is the only thing that saves.

[ccabal86]

I disagree. If you read William Lane Craig's writings on the kalam cosmological argument, he says that God existed outside of time, and in creating time and space entered time. There's no logical inconsistency there. What that means is that God need not have a beginning.
 
(As an aside: Christians, of course, believe God is Trinity. That means that God the Father is outside of time, and God the Son is within time. So God is both inside of time and outside of time.)
 
You're also presuming that God has to act within the physical laws of the universe. Christians believe in the uniformity of natural causes within an open system. In other words, we do accept that the universe behaves according to physical laws, however, these laws are subject to reordering by God: hence why Jesus could rise from the dead. That is not an impossibility. Look at developments in quantum physics: at a quantum level, electrons and various components of atoms do not act according to any discernible laws. So what?

So what indeed? It's interesting that at first you stand by the Kalam argument, the core of which stands on rigid causality (whatever begins has a cause, therefore the universe too must have a "prime mover") and THEN you call on quantum physics to explain how Jesus could rise from the dead. The only problem is that at the level of quantum physics the exact causality which you expect at the formation of the universe breaks down. Again, the cake. You can't have it both ways.

 

Of course quantum mechanics are a great mystery to us at this time, and maybe we will understand it better in the future or we may not. It is my hope that as we have come to understand lightning, we will, in time understand that matter REALLY is. What I don't see the need of, is to full the "black spots" of of our under standing with imaginary creatures like the cartographers of old did by drawing dragons on the undiscovered parts of their maps. We just need to accept them for what they are: black spots
 

 

 

As to how precisely the spiritual world interacts with the physical world: sure, there are limits on what we can know as human beings. That doesn't make the concept of God affecting stuff in the physical world *improbable* per se, it simply means that we don't know how precisely that occurs. Isn't that exactly what we should expect when it comes to God? He is infinite, we are finite: there are some things we should not expect to understand, especially as we operate in the physical world.

 

First, we would need to see something that would actually INDICATE there is something to look for, like this "spiritual" world you mention. Otherwise this is, and always will be another quest for "El Dorado". Now, if you said that we should instead focus on understanding what what exactly "Matter" is, what's it really made of, and how it may transform into its various forms, then yes, I would fully agree. The guys at CERN are doing their best.

 

 

 

I am a former militant atheist who converted to Christianity after a series of supernatural events in 2008, climaxing in one particular experience which has absolutely changed my life. As a result of that encounter I went instantly from hardcore atheist to believer. I can say without the shadow of a doubt that God is real and that spirits (good and evil) can affect the physical world because I have witnessed that with my own eyes. You can believe me or not but when we start having an abstract conversation about how exactly God or evil spirits affect the physical world I just find it a moot point.

 

As a former atheist, you should know that human perception is FAR from being an accurate reading of reality Everything you see, hear, taste and feel, go through various switches (e.g. receptors, nerves) all of  which are far from fool-proof before reaching your brain. When your brain receives the signals it still has to interpret them and then it still has to make sense of what that thing is. It works MOST of the time.

 

Then, there are circumstances when the system works funny, quirks or even fails. When someone takes hallucinogenics, they go on a "trip" but they don't actually visit all the magical places they see, in reality, they're sitting on a couch staring blankly into space. It's the chemicals and cross-firing receptors in their brains that give them the experience. Even without the use of hallucinogenics, people may "see" things that actually aren't there. These are so common that just in my family there were two "sightings" of "supernatural" beings (one hilarious and one deeply tragic), and I have no reason to doubt the sincereness of these claims. Being aware of the specific circumstances though, I am not surprised they happened.

 

Even large groups of people can be deceived, just look at the "Miracle of the Sun" where tens of thousands apparently saw the sun zig-zag across the sky, and some other crazy things. I think we can empirically state that the Sun did not zig-zag anyhere (because if it did, It would have scorched Earth and the rest of the Solar System). All this is a proof of is how human perception is inaccurate and how the psyche can work in incredibly strange ways.

 

EDIT: That Trinity thing though, wow.... It's so hilariously convoluted that Christians themselves never got to understand it, let alone agree of it (see why a good deal of schisms happened). On this, I can somewhat agree with some Muslims when they claim Christians are actually polytheists

[ccabal86]

 

It comes to a question that in the beginning. Science dose not provide the answer. God is eternal and has no beginning. You ended in a roundabout endless cycle of something have to be before that without that. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, there is either a god that created everything or we have a universe that makes no sense and we actually don't exist. Just my view.

And my view is exactly what you just mentioned. That we are a universe that does not make sense. The phenomena of existence, with or without a god, is completely illogical. As a Taoist, my view is that existence itself is a paradox. There is no beginning or end. Simply endless being. 

 

EDIT: But I should avoid this thread. I like debating but I shouldn't preach. 

 

 

There is a demonstrable beginning to this universe (as you said, the BBT is pretty solid) and there will very likely be an end. I do agree that it does not make sense, and most importantly it has no PURPOSE. We humans like to find a purpose behind everything, it the way our psychology works. The universe however cares not about that

[Fox Fire]

 

 

It comes to a question that in the beginning. Science dose not provide the answer. God is eternal and has no beginning. You ended in a roundabout endless cycle of something have to be before that without that. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, there is either a god that created everything or we have a universe that makes no sense and we actually don't exist. Just my view.

And my view is exactly what you just mentioned. That we are a universe that does not make sense. The phenomena of existence, with or without a god, is completely illogical. As a Taoist, my view is that existence itself is a paradox. There is no beginning or end. Simply endless being. 

 

EDIT: But I should avoid this thread. I like debating but I shouldn't preach. 

 

 

There is a demonstrable beginning to this universe (as you said, the BBT is pretty solid) and there will very likely be an end. I do agree that it does not make sense, and most importantly it has no PURPOSE. We humans like to find a purpose behind everything, it the way our psychology works. The universe however cares not about that

 

I don't think that end is the ultimate end. I believe in a multiverse inherently connected to our own. I'm not completely sold on how exactly it works, but I like the idea of black hole cosmology and I'm pretty firm in believing fractal cosmology. So there are beginnings in some sense, but no overall beginning. 

 

All of existence in a perceivable form:

[Kitkat16]

Seeing as you have impressed me so far by a: not being a dick and b: seemingly being open to real discussion, I'll answer your objection to the kalam cosmological argument, ccabal (forgive the slight snarkiness, I've just encountered a lot of quite unpleasant new atheists, consider what I said a compliment :v)

 

So what indeed? It's interesting that at first you stand by the Kalam argument, the core of which stands on rigid causality (whatever begins has a cause, therefore the universe too must have a "prime mover") and THEN you call on quantum physics to explain how Jesus could rise from the dead. The only problem is that at the level of quantum physics the exact causality which you expect at the formation of the universe breaks down. Again, the cake. You can't have it both ways.

 

Been reading Lawrence Krauss? You should really read the other side (theists) as well. Your argument confuses something coming into existence out of a vacuum, which William Lane Craig (correctly) describes as a "sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws", with something coming into existence out of literal nothing. According to the Big Bang theory, space itself started with an initial singularity at the time of the Big Bang, and Stephen Hawking argues that space itself continues to expand. The argument is not that particles cannot come into existence in a vacuum, it's that something cannot come into existence out of literal nothing without a cause. To grasp the concept of literal nothing, place your thumb and forefinger together and consider the space in between them. There isn't any. Craig says that particles which come into existence out of a vacuum have an "indeterministic cause".

 

(I have written two essays on the kalam cosmological argument at university, which were 3000 and 5000 words respectively. I got an A+. I'd be happy to send you one or both of my essays if you're interested. The quantum physics objection is considered by experts on both sides to be thoroughly refuted.)

 

 EDIT: That Trinity thing though, wow.... It's so hilariously convoluted that Christians themselves never got to understand it, let alone agree of it (see why a good deal of schisms happened). On this, I can somewhat agree with some Muslims when they claim Christians are actually polytheists 

 

 

It's actually not that complicated. A man and woman in marriage according to my faith are literally one being. It's not just that they have a very close relationship: it's that if you assault my wife, you assault me too. That is why historically in the Christian West wives were not required to testify against their husbands in a court of law: to testify against their husband was to testify against themselves, which invoked the right against self-incrimination. A husband and wife in marriage are one being and two persons at the same time, just as God is one being and three persons at the same time.

 

To provide another less controversial analogy, consider Cerberus the three-headed dog in ancient Greek mythology: one being (a three-headed dog) in which there are three centres of consciousness. Or another analogy: if three lawyers form a firm together, is there one law firm or three?

[DarkFox]

The Big Bang Theory is pretty damn solid. More than that. It's mostly based on math and physical observations. Doubting it is the equivalent of doubting gravity or that the sky looks blue. Having a great interest in cosmology I can certainly say it's about as proven as science allows something to be proven. Also, I don't think the universe ever actually "ends", like I explained above. I think it's a paradox. 

 

 

Based off of observation? I was unaware we had people watching the birth of the universe  . While the theory is backed by a lot of things it has yet to be proven. It is kinda similar with what people thought global warming was during the 90s, sure they read the signs and came up with an answer but it wasn't entirely correct. Yes we are screwing up the environment but they were wrong with the details. If we cant even figure out something we can see, feel and actually have detailed records for then why should we assume that the BBT is anywhere near fact? Furthermore we have such a small frame of reference for the observation to prove the BBT, and there is so much more we don't know. Hell we don't even have the faintest idea of whats out there to know what could influence the universe. With that said the BBT could very well be correct I just would like to point out that generally avoiding theories for ways to support an argument is a good idea.

 

 

Also fun video that is semi relevant to this thread.

https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0

[Fox Fire]

 

The Big Bang Theory is pretty damn solid. More than that. It's mostly based on math and physical observations. Doubting it is the equivalent of doubting gravity or that the sky looks blue. Having a great interest in cosmology I can certainly say it's about as proven as science allows something to be proven. Also, I don't think the universe ever actually "ends", like I explained above. I think it's a paradox. 

 

 

Based off of observation? I was unaware we had people watching the birth of the universe  . While the theory is backed by a lot of things it has yet to be proven. It is kinda similar with what people thought global warming was during the 90s, sure they read the signs and came up with an answer but it wasn't entirely correct. Yes we are screwing up the environment but they were wrong with the details. If we cant even figure out something we can see, feel and actually have detailed records for then why should we assume that the BBT is anywhere near fact? Furthermore we have such a small frame of reference for the observation to prove the BBT, and there is so much more we don't know. Hell we don't even have the faintest idea of whats out there to know what could influence the universe. With that said the BBT could very well be correct I just would like to point out that generally avoiding theories for ways to support an argument is a good idea.

 

 

Also fun video that is semi relevant to this thread.

https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0

 

Yes, observational. The cosmic microwave background is just one among many examples. There's no way of explaining it's existence without the Big Bang. We don't know every detail of the universe but no other theory comes even remotely or noticeably close to having the evidence that exists for the big bang. We've basically hit a wall with the Plank Epoch. Nothing prior can ever be experimentally verified. The topic of cosmogony is a guessing game.The Big Bang is not a "set in stone" theory. It's always being revised but the basic concepts always remain the same. 

 

Though I don't think the BBT conflicts with creationism. Unless you're a fundamentalist. 

[DarkFox]

There's no way of explaining it's existence without the Big Bang.

 

 

Depends on frame of reference. After all a long time ago people thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system and everything rotated around us. with that said I am not arguing against the BBT because I don't like it, but rather to be a devil's advocate and things should not be considered fact until they are proven. 

 

Though I don't think the BBT conflicts with creationism. Unless you're a fundamentalist. 

 

 

Many people much smarter than I have linked it to creationism and use as a supporting element to proving it. The thing is like so many things in this world we are ignorant, and I hate not knowing. 

[ccabal86]

I just wanted to say I have not abandoned this thread, and want to post more, it's just that I simply cannot carve the time/energy right now as RL have turned up. May make it a few evenings, otherwise, I'll do it in the weekend

[ccabal86]

There is a very comprehensive article on BBC about where science today stands on the origin of life. Warning: long read

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

[Fox Fire]

I think the world could benefit from a Pantheist perspective of their existence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)#God_or_Nature

[ccabal86]

Very interesting interview with a Philosophy assistant professor concerning the US elections, the regressive left, and how it infiltrated universities. There's some stuff at the beginning which is not that interesting, but in the second half of the article he is spot on about the problem we're facing.

https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/08/peter-boghossian-on-critical-thinking-the-atheos-app-and-the-post-modern-influence-on-universities/

The interesting bit starts with "MM: Some final thoughts on the election?..."

[Kitkat16]

Very interesting interview with a Philosophy assistant professor concerning the US elections, the regressive left, and how it infiltrated universities. There's some stuff at the beginning which is not that interesting, but in the second half of the article he is spot on about the problem we're facing.

https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/08/peter-boghossian-on-critical-thinking-the-atheos-app-and-the-post-modern-influence-on-universities/

The interesting bit starts with "MM: Some final thoughts on the election?..."

 

I actually quite liked that article We Christians think postmodernism is bs as well. The article was actually very complimentary towards Christians:

 

Here’s what is surprising: with very few exceptions, and there are exceptions, Christians are very kind decent people all over the world. I do talks and we go out afterwards for drinks etc., and we talk with civility.

The far Left in contemporary academia is not like this. These are viciously ideological and nasty people whose goal it is to shut down discourse and indoctrinate students. I think we’ve spent too much time on Creationism. The problem is less with creationism and more with radical Leftism. For example, if you’re a professor who teaches in the biological sciences, creationists have substantive disagreements with your work and they’ll try to demean it. But they’re not going to harass you or your family. They’re not going to try and get you fired. They’re not going to call you a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a homophobe.

The far Left have successfully managed to infiltrate our universities. A consequence: radical incivility and students who hold preposterous views of reality and think they’re better people as a result. One reason is because people go into ideological bunkers where they protect themselves from ideas. And this is a type of ideological convergence which strengthens and exemplifies their convictions. They’ve created “safe spaces” for themselves and anyone who persistently questions those becomes the target of a smear campaign.

[ccabal86]

Another excellent piece on the crisis of liberalism and the toxicity of identity politics, this time from a uni professor of letters: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Campus-Identity-Politics-Is/238694?key=tZ1LWdA_bVNIm62Zk-gE3OXblqR876StmduxgZ0O_4W4p04qucH2BW-lJNbMIk08QUd6QkFYRjFUdDE0aENybFFrNElDOXRTYWRwNUlTaGV1alktUjBUVDJYWQ