10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

redrock

EddieLedBetter wrote:

I'm talking on scripture it's not me judging. It's the author of scripture judging. .

Just like 'the devil made me do it'

The scriptures seem to say that that should one not live their lives in the fear of god, they are doomed. They judge (and condemn!) non believers. You believe and accept the scriptures - you judge along with them.

Gern Blansten

redrock wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

I'm talking on scripture it's not me judging. It's the author of scripture judging. .

Just like 'the devil made me do it'

The scriptures seem to say that that should one not live their lives in the fear of god, they are doomed. They judge (and condemn!) non believers. You believe and accept the scriptures - you judge along with them.

yes....

redrock

dpmay wrote:

redrock wrote:

dpmay wrote:

and in any case, i think pretty much everyone lives their lives based in part on faith in something or another.

Faith in yourself as a human being.

yup, that's what i am saying. is this faith any more or less reasonable than a faith in god?

You know you exist (somewhat concrete evidence of this!), you can feel yourself, see yourself, others see and feel you. You are master of your destiny. No one saw god, no concrete evidence of him being around... I would say faith in myself is more reasonable.

Though we could always go the Descartes way and how he decided god existed.

Gern Blansten

dpmay wrote:

wait a sec - you believe you could beat a dog, the dog would suffer, and that would not mean the dog has value? i think a dog does have value, and that's why it suffers. if a dog is a valueless, how can the dog suffer? if it has no value, who cares what happens to it? in that case, is it really suffering or just an illusion of suffering created by the dog's brain chemistry?

maybe I didn't follow your point....although I don't really know what your point was I guess

EddieLedBetter

I have faith in we both can't be right. Either we die and disappear into nothingness or we don't. Either we were created for a purpose with moral standards to uphold or we weren't.
Macroevolution offers no answers to these statements. There is no "right and wrong" when it comes to survival of the fittest.

markin ball

dpmay wrote:

markin ball wrote:

"It's turtles all the way down."

We're talking about ID and I'm not arguing on the side of the big bang or evolution here. ID says it all just can't come from nothing by accident, right? So how could the intelligent designer not have been designed?

regarding the origin of god (if one exists) and the universe, we have two choices, right?

event 1 was caused by event 2 which was caused by event 3 which was caused by event 4 which was caused by...extending infinitely into the "past."

OR:

event 1 was caused by event 2 which was casued by event 3 which was caused by...which was caused by event 234,454,452,353,343 - or whatever - the sequence has a beginning.

neither of these precludes the possible existence of god.

in the first case, we could have an infinitely existing god, which is what a lot of god-believers think is the nature of god.

in the second case, we have a first cause (here, it's event 234,454,452,353,343 - haha). it would be within the realm of possibility to call that first cause 'god'.

In the first case...the universe itself could also be the thing that is infinitely existing and intelligent design theory is invalid.

In the second case...If the first cause is god, then intelligent design theory is invalid because ID theory explains that it is not reasonable for something to come from nothing, so if the universe can't come from nothing, neither can god.

dpmay

redrock wrote:

You know you exist (somewhat concrete evidence of this!), you can feel yourself, see yourself, others see and feel you. You are master of your destiny. No one saw god, no concrete evidence of him being around... I would say faith in myself is more reasonable.

Though we could always go the Descartes way and how he decided god existed.

yes, all good points about my existence. however i believe that faith in one's self requires as much logical defense as faith in god. many very bad people have had faith in themselves. was that faith justified more than my own faith in god?

we also have a lot of evidence that people have done a lot to fuck things up around here, and it's just hard for me to put my ultimate faith in something that has been proved so often to be so messed up. humanity, that is. i guess that sounds really negative, and i don't necessarily mean it that way. it's just that, ultimately, humanism places so much faith in something that we have definitely seen to be, shall we say, less than good?

dpmay

Gern Blansten wrote:

dpmay wrote:

wait a sec - you believe you could beat a dog, the dog would suffer, and that would not mean the dog has value? i think a dog does have value, and that's why it suffers. if a dog is a valueless, how can the dog suffer? if it has no value, who cares what happens to it? in that case, is it really suffering or just an illusion of suffering created by the dog's brain chemistry?

maybe I didn't follow your point....although I don't really know what your point was I guess

i guess i was just wondering why human suffering is real. or the dog's suffering. i believe the suffering of each is, in fact, real. which, to me, means that people (and dogs) have real, inherent value. so my honest question is where does that value come from?

(again, not implying non-god-believers do not value life or anything like that.)

dpmay

markin ball wrote:

dpmay wrote:

markin ball wrote:

"It's turtles all the way down."

We're talking about ID and I'm not arguing on the side of the big bang or evolution here. ID says it all just can't come from nothing by accident, right? So how could the intelligent designer not have been designed?

regarding the origin of god (if one exists) and the universe, we have two choices, right?

event 1 was caused by event 2 which was caused by event 3 which was caused by event 4 which was caused by...extending infinitely into the "past."

OR:

event 1 was caused by event 2 which was casued by event 3 which was caused by...which was caused by event 234,454,452,353,343 - or whatever - the sequence has a beginning.

neither of these precludes the possible existence of god.

in the first case, we could have an infinitely existing god, which is what a lot of god-believers think is the nature of god.

in the second case, we have a first cause (here, it's event 234,454,452,353,343 - haha). it would be within the realm of possibility to call that first cause 'god'.

In the first case...the universe itself could also be the thing that is infinitely existing and intelligent design theory is invalid.

In the second case...If the first cause is god, then intelligent design theory is invalid because ID theory explains that it is not reasonable for something to come from nothing, so if the universe can't come from nothing, neither can god.

fair points. but i was not arguing for the validity of intelligent design as a scientific theory. nor was i trying to provide a proof of god. i was just responding to the general sentiment (i guess not your's in particular) that god cannot exist because if so, what caused god? i was just pointing out that that particular line of reasoning shouldn't be considered valid in disproving god...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

you guys have all completely lost me. :shock:

catefrances

EddieLedBetter wrote:

I have faith in we both can't be right. Either we die and disappear into nothingness or we don't. Either we were created for a purpose with moral standards to uphold or we weren't.
Macroevolution offers no answers to these statements. There is no "right and wrong" when it comes to survival of the fittest.

we dont disappear into nothingness. we just become a part of what is around us.

redrock

Johnny Sitar wrote:

you guys have all completely lost me. :shock:

It's OK... The answer is 42.

redrock

dpmay wrote:

redrock wrote:

You know you exist (somewhat concrete evidence of this!), you can feel yourself, see yourself, others see and feel you. You are master of your destiny. No one saw god, no concrete evidence of him being around... I would say faith in myself is more reasonable.

Though we could always go the Descartes way and how he decided god existed.

yes, all good points about my existence. however i believe that faith in one's self requires as much logical defense as faith in god. many very bad people have had faith in themselves. was that faith justified more than my own faith in god?

we also have a lot of evidence that people have done a lot to fuck things up around here, and it's just hard for me to put my ultimate faith in something that has been proved so often to be so messed up. humanity, that is. i guess that sounds really negative, and i don't necessarily mean it that way. it's just that, ultimately, humanism places so much faith in something that we have definitely seen to be, shall we say, less than good?

I'm not saying if placing faith in myself (bad or good!) is more 'justified' than placing faith in a god. I'm saying it seems more reasonable to me.

Humanism... hmmm.... I think I would tend more toward existentialism though humanism does have good points too (it's not about putting your faith in mankind as a whole and thinking humans are inherently good).
As you say, people have done a lot to fuck things up but, if I read what some believers in this thread have to say, the world is cursed - that's why those things happen. Who cursed this world? It can only be god as he is the 'master of the universe' and controls man's destiny (as believers need to follow his rules or be dammed.) I would rather put my faith in a flawed man that can change things than thinking that bad stuff happen because there is a vengeful god who curses the world.

Gern Blansten

dpmay wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

dpmay wrote:

wait a sec - you believe you could beat a dog, the dog would suffer, and that would not mean the dog has value? i think a dog does have value, and that's why it suffers. if a dog is a valueless, how can the dog suffer? if it has no value, who cares what happens to it? in that case, is it really suffering or just an illusion of suffering created by the dog's brain chemistry?

maybe I didn't follow your point....although I don't really know what your point was I guess

i guess i was just wondering why human suffering is real. or the dog's suffering. i believe the suffering of each is, in fact, real. which, to me, means that people (and dogs) have real, inherent value. so my honest question is where does that value come from?

(again, not implying non-god-believers do not value life or anything like that.)

my life has no value to you....my dogs life has no value to you

our lives only have value to our families....not to invisible people

pandora

I value the lives of invisible people and their dogs

EddieLedBetter

redrock wrote:

Humanism... hmmm.... I think I would tend more toward existentialism though humanism does have good points too (it's not about putting your faith in mankind as a whole and thinking humans are inherently good).
As you say, people have done a lot to fuck things up but, if I read what some believers in this thread have to say, the world is cursed - that's why those things happen. Who cursed this world? It can only be god as he is the 'master of the universe' and controls man's destiny (as believers need to follow his rules or be dammed.) I would rather put my faith in a flawed man that can change things than thinking that bad stuff happen because there is a vengeful god who curses the world.

This is what I have gathered studying through faith and human experience.

You cant say humans are inherently good because you you have to first be outside of everything in existence to know what good is. You judge good by your standards and good for you isnt always good for others. No human is all good. In all of us there are good qualities but we give into bad daily. Only an outside force with an all good nature (God) can perscribe what good is = the Bible. Realizing that you are a sinner at heart is the first step. You may do good things but that doesnt make you good. Osama leads his people and they think he is good. We as americans may give to the poor every once and a while but we all become jealous, angry, or vengeful with our friends or family at times. Consider your heart a white sheet and each little sin drops of blood. The more and more sins that enter your life the less and less your inherent goodness (sheet) gets stained.

With that said...

Humans cursed the world, God didnt. We chose this path by wanting the knowlege God possesses. The opposition of God dangled it in front of us and we CHOSE it. We could have the knowlege if we want it and we chose it. The opposition still dangles it in front of us to this day and we still choose it by giving into our sinful nature. He and God are battling for our souls. We fight wars because we are now like our earthy father which is satan. Granted the story of Adam and Eve is in the form of a childs story but it has such great depth and meaning. Is that how it litteraly went down? No I doubt it. Originally the story says we were protected on earth "in a garden". You have to wonder why it specifies that we were protected from the outside world. Dinosaurs, earthquakes, death and destruction for humans were on the outside. These things arent evil naturally only when they start to kill us do we consider them that. Earthquakes are essential to the release of nitrogen from the plates to maintain specific levels in the atmosphere. Dinosaurs are awesome creatures and I'm sure were fun to watch, much like a dog. Death must exist in the outside world or it would become unbalanced and over populated. Now we know what God knows and are living in that world because we chose to know this about human nature and the natural world. We still chose to search and know scientifically much about the world when all the essentials God has told us in his spoken/written word.

God is only vengeful to his opposition. The deity that he created that chose to rebel and the human that choses to disbelieve and live unaccordingly. A person doesnt get comfort from their creator when suffering occurs because he denys it, resulting in hopelessness.

We control our destiny.

You cant come to know God thinking through logic, He is outside the realm of logic.

he still stands

ELB, do you think that maybe you are just in a different "reality-tunnel" from most others, just as I am in a different reality tunnel, and every person is in a different tunnel? Maybe every tunnel is just as relevant and provable as any other? If so, why proselytize? If not, do you think you deny the "reality tunnel" because the concept makes you feel lonely?

Also, I consider myself a humanist agnostic (thanks Mr. Vonnegut). I help others when possible and try to be a good human to my brothers and sisters. But, I don't know about god(s). I don't deny the existence... but I can't say "I Believe" because that wouldn't be true. Will I go to heaven or to hell?

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Dinosaurs are awesome creatures and I'm sure were fun to watch, much like a dog

so...you believe humans existed at the same time and watched dinosaurs?

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

You cant come to know God thinking through logic, He is outside the realm of logic.

your god is certainly outside the realm....agreed

he still stands

Gern Blansten wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Dinosaurs are awesome creatures and I'm sure were fun to watch, much like a dog

so...you believe humans existed at the same time and watched dinosaurs?

it is funny that he puts dinosaurs and dogs on the same plane in order to diminish the perceived significance of an animal that is in direct conflict with the bible's teachings. tsk tsk.

For some reason I cannot get this kid out of my brain: