Because societal views of what’s good to cuddle up to on cold nights is severely lacking and God is kind to chubby chasers 
2 Likes
If we are entertaining the possibility that God does exist, I wonder how is it appropriate for you to be the one deciding what is or is not acceptable evidence? How do you think that conversation is going to go on judgement day?
- God: “You didn’t put your trust in my Son Jesus; you will receive the just punishment for your sins.”
- grenorange: “But, oh all-powerful and all-knowing God, you didn’t really provide me with enough of the right sort of evidence.”
- God: “Hmm. Actually, you are right, oh finite and limited creature. Fully satisfying your intellectual curiosity is important. I rather screwed that up, I admit. Never mind then - you’re let off.”
?
God has revealed himself progressively to his people and to the world over thousands of years, most clearly in the person of his Son, Jesus, who came to earth to show us what God is like and to rescue us from the consequences of our sin (rebellion against God). He caused four accounts of his life to be written down, which “are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31) He has built a global community of believers who live changed lives, and testify to the fact that the indwelling Holy Spirit brings love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. He has caused his message to be clearly proclaimed in more and more nations, such that no-one in the US or UK, at least, can claim they are unaware of it. He has made a free unconditional offer of forgiveness, and Jesus said that “whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37).
I suspect any effort to convince God that he hasn’t actually done enough will not be persuasive.
Well that sounds like a wonderful justification, thanks, I’ll use that.
Well, entropy doesn’t permit ghosts or an afterlife, so, I wont. But on that, how do you know it will be the Christian God doing the judging. Have you prepared a justification just encase it’s the Roman or Greek Gods, not to mention the millions of current day religions, or completely undocumented stone age ones?
I know what it’s like to absolutely know you have the right God, I was once a Christian myself. The thing is that everything other non-Christian religion is feeling the same thing. They are just as sure as you. Think all of the blood split over these competing religions, if that doesn’t show commit, I don’t know what does. Religion divides, there is no escaping that, whereas I think we could all just be a little more peaceful if we all took this image on board
I think it is better to live the best life you can now, rather than worrying about your heaven entry ticket. Especially if it is at the detriment of this life you have now. If religion makes your life on earth better, I can’t argue with that, go for it. For me, I have found it detrimental.
1 Like
Ok, finally got a chance to read that last reference. I am going to assume that it was an accurate summary of the articles it referenced, I certainly don’t have the time to find and read all of that. What it talked about was the ability of life to adapt, even to the point being classified as a different species in a strict definition of the term. Life does have that ability. I can imagine that all of the Lords and Masters of the Universe (the official title of the felines) came from a single pair. But, that’s my imagination at work. And that is part of the point. It is quite the imagination to say that this flower will eventually adapt into a tree, or this fruit fly will eventually adapt into a bird, or this ass will eventually adapt into a journalist, politician, clergyman, or some machinist that lives in the middle of Kansas (my wife wonders at time!)
Now, you mentioned the Big Bang theory. I still wonder if that background radiation isn’t some kind of leftovers from when Elvis would go to the mother ship for another concert. 
Anyway, I have been intrigued by that theory, that is, after my usual knee jerk skepticism I usually have when hearing about a theory. Many may not realize that, if that is really how our universe started, it is not in conflict with Bible teaching. The very first verse you can read says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Does that rule out a Big Bang? No. A few verses in Isaiah 40, after saying that the earth is round, it mentions that by God’s vast dynamic energy all the stars were created. The writer surely would have been impressed by the energy he could observe from our sun, but there is absolutely no evidence that he or anyone from over 2500 years ago knew or speculated that all the stars seen in the sky by the naked eye were more than points of light. Let alone figuring out that they are not just balls of fire. It’s been a long time since I have read much on the Big Bang , but I remember a speculation that it must have been a near infinite amount of energy needed to make that happen. Just where did this energy come from? One can speculate till the cows come home, assuming one has cows, but that is all that can be done. I find the answer recorded in the Bible most satisfying and logical. Not to make a point, but rather blather on with the goings on in my head on this subject.
Well, in all this, I am afraid that I might have gone way beyond this.
The only area where the standard model of the universe, including the “Big Bang Theory” and old testament’s description of the creation of the universe is a matter of timing. Genesis talks about days but this has often been taken not to be literal days (as in 24 hours) but periods which may have been of different lengths and much longer.
This does not preclude the possibility that a creator god set up the universe but it does not require a god either. I prefer to take the line that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. For me this does not invoke a call to the supernatural. Obviously others here disagree and I’m fine with that.
This is a misunderstanding of the theory of “evolution”. Nobody knows how new species are going to evolve. In his book, On the origin of species, Charles Darwin argued that be already knew we could selectively change species of plants and animals because we had been doing it for centuries as part of farming for example. He postulated that there may be a mechanism that this could happen by natural means. The theory basically states over time there are mutations which may lead to a particular individual being better in some way than the others and could pass this particular trait on. More often than not this mutation would offer no advantage and may be detrimental to the individual so the individual would not be more successful and would not survive to pass this trait on. On the rare occasions where this trait was a benefit the individual would be more likely to breed or have more offspring. Each mutation is tiny but the cumulative effect over several generations this can lead to big changes and new species.
It must be noted that the common use of the word “theory” and its scientific use are quite different. A scientific theory must fit all the observed data and be able to make predictions. Once it can be shown that the theory does not fit the data then we know the theory is thrown out. For example we know that Newton’s idea on gravity is flawed though as an engineer I can’t recall any time I have had to resort to the theory of relativity because except in exceptional circumstances the difference between the answers is too tiny to care about and the maths is much easier using Newtonian physics. One common device we use that relies on the theory of relativity to work however is GPS.
One comment I would like to make here is all the voices we have heard so far are athiest, agnostic or Christian. I would like make it clear that all voices are welcome,.
3 Likes
You’ve mentioned that personal view before, in a relatively small thread. I just wanted to verify use of the term rather:
rath·er (răth′ər, rä′thər)
adv.
- More readily; preferably: I’d rather go to the movies.
Was that your intended meaning ?
Yes. It is preferable to live the best life you can, than worry about a hypothetical, not supported by evidence entry ticket.
edit: removed argument as unsure how to best phase it. Click the pen/edit icon to view.
Nya, that’s cool. I wasn’t asking you for an argument to justify your personal beliefs, I just wanted to clarify the language used and the implied dichotomy of it in case you were a non-native english speaker (tee hee, I have my own personal little theory that some of the kindest, warmest people…unfortunately learned english from youtube comments :0 ).
I can’t speak to other religious systems, but I can see how that misconception of what it means to be Christian may have formed. I’ve encountered many a narcissist asshole hiding behind religion to justify bad behaviours myself. For starters, my people (I’m Ojibwe) have a history of children being stolen from parents and incarcerated in religious residential schools by religious people (that would be called ethnic cleansing and not ‘helping’ now) . My people weren’t considered citizens, even real humans, nor allowed to vote until the 1960’s. People can be dicks 
So yeah, I get where the view you may have that Christians have other priorities that living good lives and being good people may have come from. Yet (as with any group) you really can’t judge everyone with the same broad strokes, especially when you consider the human tendency for co-option. I’m sorry if you’ve had shitty experiences with people who call themselves Christians in the past but they were exactly that; Experiences with people who call themselves Christian. Accept Jesus into your heart : That’s all ya gotta do (and it’s not acceptance if you’re just complying, bowing to pressure, being bullied, etc.). The rest is just shitty excuses of people with their own agendas missing the point. I already know I’m going to heaven, even though I don’t even remember half the stupid stuff I did in the early 90’s due to being so drugged up, I’m still going to heaven. I don’t have to worry about ‘earning a ticket’. I do what I do and try my best to be good because I want to as I understand why it’s important, not out of fear or some sort of sycophancy. My motivations are more powerful and pure now because a precondition of acceptance is understanding. I could recommend the story of Martha and Mary to you to further illustrate the point (HA HA my fave as I’m kinda what current western society considers a ‘slacker’ myself ;)) but you’re gonna do and believe what you’re going to right now…that’s your journey and that’s Ok 
Could you just do me a favour and stop implying that just because I’m a Christian that I’m not concerned with being a good person or living a good life in the here and now though? Because really, you don’t know me. I think that’s a fair request
Well English is the only language I speak, so I really hope it’s not that bad. I’m culturally tied to the New Zealand flavour of English. I think my message encoding may be quite different from your decoding of it.
Yes, it is human nature to broadly categorise things that are really a spectrum’s. Green is only differs from blue in wavelength/energy and there are a spectrum of other wavelengths between them. (although at the smallest scale they are indeed quantised to multiples of Plank’s constant ~6.63e-34.) This tendency has been evolutionary advantageous however in our current society is somewhat detrimental. I do try, somewhat unsuccessfully to avoid this tendency. I am not trying to judge any one Christian, but religion as a concept. As a concept, it think religion is detrimental to people living their lives and to society, not just because some religious people act like dicks - so do atheists. But because it indoctrinates people into a believing, non skeptical, and non scientific ways of thinking. Being skeptical of policy is what holds democracy together.
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to. I’m sure you lead a wonderful life. I’m actually looking from the perspective of the person living the life. I think it is in their best interest to live however they find most enjoyable, to be passionate about what they find interesting. If you find religion interesting and enjoyable then I can’t argue with that. If that’s what you want to do with your life then go for it. I find the universe, and the physical laws that describe it interesting, that it what I am passionate about. I find religion a limiting factor is exploring this passion. I’m not saying you have to know that the length of a 10m train when traveling at 95% the speed of light is contracted to only 3 meters for an outside inertial observer. [L’=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)*L, sqrt(1-(0.95^2))*10] I’m saying that people should find their passions and explore them rather then being forced in to religious practices by the threat of eternal damnation. I understand once in religion this is no longer generally a driving factor, as you have stated you do what you do because you want to. However it can be used as an example of a device to get people into religion. Again I am not staying it is the only one or even the best one. However I think saying ‘Jesus loves you’ is also a somewhat more subtle method of forcing people into religion practices via positive emotions and culture conformity, but to the same end.
Edit, I just realised that my linked video covers time dilation, not length contraction. They are both a result of each other, length contraction coming from the fact that to measure the length of an object one must measure the positions of the ends relative to each other at the same instant. Sorry I don’t have a video explaining this.
I guess this feeling I have of being forced in to religious practices does come from being brought up with them, as well as guilt that I helped in indoctrination of others for a time before realising my mistake. I guess in this that my anger at religion is really directed at myself. Please don’t feel that I am judging anyone on this forum other than myself. If I’m implying that anyone didn’t lead a good life, it is that of my past self, and I really should stop now because I sound like a crazy person.
I have one request. Please don’t try to convert me, I have already been there.
Maybe I should plan out some interest papers. How about this and this. Unfortunately my spare slots are kinda lacking until 4th year.
That’s not the only definition of “rather”. Merriam-Webster lists 5 entries for it, one of which is “to the contrary” or “instead” which is probably what was meant.
Yup, but that’s how I interpreted it and I wanted to make sure that’s what they meant instead of assuming. It’s a good practice to verify if unsure.
Oh no, it’s great. That was just an aside explaining why I’ve gotten in the habit of verifying things to prevent my potential misinterpretations
Yes, it is human nature to broadly categorise things that are really a spectrum’s
Well, cartesianism plus the bad practice of simply changing/repackaging things to fit our ruler instead of considering maybe it’s time to get another ruler. This I’ve found is true for almost everything…hey, were only human 
but religion as a concept
Ah, that’s cool. I’d agree with you for the most part but in the sense that we humans are great at f&*&cking it all up.
But because it indoctrinates people into a believing, non skeptical, and non scientific ways of thinking."
Well, yes, I actually am guilty of that. For example, people in the thread have used time as a linear in some of their arguments. I’m of the personal opinion that time itself is not linear, only our (as humans with human senses) perception of it is. I do realise that I’m the odd person out on this particular forum though and that most here insist on the rigour you also desire. Y’know, I honestly don’t think that has a lot to do with my Christianity though. There are lots of, vehemently, atheist ‘woo woo out there’ types too
However I think saying ‘Jesus loves you’ is also a somewhat more subtle method of forcing people into religion practices via positive emotions and culture conformity, but to the same end.
Heh, well I once lived in central Florida as a brown person for half a year and have come to associate that particular phrase as a form of condescending back handed compliment. Gotta love southern ‘charm’ /s Again, my main point being that a lot of the acts of religious people, are just that…acts of people . That’s the only take away I hope you get from this conversation, well, that and my original request. Because, and I was hoping to make this clear in my last comment but, I’ll just state it bluntly:
It is not my intent to convert you.
HA HA! I did mention I was pretty shit at “being Christian” at the beginning of all this
Especially right now according to society as it’s 9 am on a Sunday and my only immediate plans are to have some left over beef and broccoli before bed. While my Dad calls and bitches at me for my absences routinely, I know Jesus doesn’t give a shit knows that I’m too tired.
Seriously though, acceptance != capitulation to someone else’s wishes…ever.
Wow, that was a lot. Thanks for taking the time
1 Like
Since @grenorange mentioned he is majoring in physics, I just am compelled to relate another bar joke.
A neutrino goes into a bar and the bartender says “hey, we don’t serve your type here” and the neutrino says “that’s ok, I’m just passing through.”
3 Likes
Thank you.
Schroedinger’s cat walked into a bar… and didn’t.
A photon walks into a hotel and is asked if it would like help with it’s baggage. “No need, I’m travelling light!”
2 Likes
I always wanted Schroedinger’s cat litter box. It doesn’t need cleaned until observed. 
3 Likes
There is a problem and benefit with this kind of faith, @gerv.
On hand it can provide exceptional comfort as every argument that challenges the existence of a god can be responded with “well, God is bigger than this, and operates beyond our plane of expectations and science”. This creates a permanent, unquestionable comfort blanket.
The challenge with with this kind of faith is that it mitigates any actual discussion about the rational existence of god, and could arguably justify or seemingly rationalize things that don’t actually exist.
Without making things political, it is like people who are hardcore conservatives and liberals who can effectively explain away every decision that, for example, Trump or Clinton made during the election. Another example are people who believe in conspiracy theories - they can always refute evidence that challenges their views as they say “the people who make the evidence are in on the cover up and faked it”.
This is why I think we need to entertain both sides of the debate. On one hand, we simply have no way of proving or disproving the existence of god with our current socially accepted means of proving things in the world (science). On the other hand, a supernatural force could indeed transcend our methods of proving something, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don’t believe our brains are cut out to understand things such as god (if indeed he/she/it exists).
I think what we do need to accept though is that in the absence of independently verifiable affirmations of the existence or non-existence of god, that our views are faith. This doesn’t merely apply to those who believe in god, but also those who are convinced that god does not exist - it is still faith, just a different kind. With this we should also understand that faith is a personal concept, and doesn’t hold much water with those who don’t share the same kind of faith (hence the bickering in the political sphere).
2 Likes
That seems like an assumption worth challenging. If God exists and created us and wishes to communicate with us, it is reasonable to think that He would have given us the ability to understand all the things He wanted us to know, even if we are unable to understand him fully. (I would say we need the help of the Holy Spirit but, if we have that, it’s possible and even normal and expected.)
I’ll go further, in fact. The existence of God is the only reason one can ever truly know anything, scientific or otherwise. One’s knowledge of any situation is always partial - it can never be totally complete. And so some further information or evidence could come along which changes things. This happens in science all the time, as you will well know - this is the scientific method at work. But this means that, in a world without God, we can never be certain of anything, as our knowledge may suffer a Copernican revolution after new evidence emerges. However, if God exists, is all-powerful and truthful and has communicated with us and told us that he has made the world ordered and told us various things about it and about himself, those things we can be certain of.
So in a sense, your argument proves too much. If you think we are not cut out to understand God, I’d argue that for the same reasons we aren’t cut out to be certain about anything.
That’s not really the argument I’m deploying and, in fact, isn’t one I find myself deploying hardly ever. The case for God is not based on handwaving; I prefer to discuss the serious implausibility of and inconsistencies in the alternative. So while I agree that belief and non-belief in God are both matters of faith, I think human sin means the two are not “symmetrical” (humans have an in-built desire to suppress the truth about God, Romans 1), and the inconsistencies of atheism both with itself and with the lived lives of those who profess to believe it are very telling.
I’d love to know how you feel, as an atheist you feel I am being inconsistent.
I asked this question initially in terms of does God exist and was careful to avoid picking any particular religion. But clearly for you there is one true god and this is the god of the Christian faith. I want to make it clear I am not trying to tell anybody you must believe this and not that but I do want to encourage people to think for themselves.
I am suggesting to you that you are almost as much of an atheist as I am. You would presumably agree with me that the gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans were mythical and superstitious nonsense. I am assuming the same would be true about any claims regarding the Egyptian gods or any other god from antiquity. If we now look at modern religions you presumably think the claims of the may gods in the Hindu religion are also nonsense.
We now start to look at Islam, Judaism and Christianity. All three religions start with the same god. They share many religious texts in common. I know less about the Jewish faith than I should but hope somebody here can fill in the gaps.
I was lucky enough to have a nice drink with a Muslim girl this weekend; I was drinking beer she was on soft drinks. Though she was wearing a top that said “I am a Muslim, I don’t do terrorism but I do hugs”. She explained to me that in her faith Jesus is respected as the penultimate prophet and his claim to be the son of god was not to be taken uniquely but in the sense that “we are all gods children”. I am also assuming you don’t accept the Jewish or Muslim interpretation either. I just don’t believe in one more god than all the ones you also reject.
I don’t see a problem here you are correct we can never be certain of anything but why is that an issue?
I am an engineer by trade and not a scientist. Obviously this means I am very interested in science: scientists try to understand the universe while engineers exploit what we know, or think we know about science, to benefit from it.
One clear difference between science and religion is that religion claims certainty while in science is OK to say we don’t know, at least not yet, but we are working on it. Most scientists are most excited when we know we have it wrong because we have a new problem to solve.
As stated much earlier in this topic I can neither prove or disprove the existence of god and this is not a specific attack on Christianity. For me however I feel there is no need to invoke the supernatural so I choose not to believe in any god much less to claim I know how god wants us to live.
This is an article of faith however and I encourage everyone to make their own minds up.
3 Likes