Some thoughts for non-believers

[Snorri1234]

Either there is a flaw in my argument, or we most abandon Point 1, Point 2, God's omnibenevolence, or logical deduction.

It is the "logical deduction" part, among other issues. What applies logically for humans, here on Earth is not necessarily what applies in the broader universe. Even Einstein approached that question.

It is not a question of "logically for humans". The words are contradicting themselves. You can't say "oooh we can't understand" because we understand perfectly well. In fact, the qualities ascribed to God by humans are what make him internally inconsistent. It doesn't matter whether we can comprehend him, because that's not what matters here.


Fun fact: It's far harder to find fault with a god who doesn't care about us.

[Frigidus]

Fun fact: It's far harder to find fault with a god who doesn't care about us.

Indeed. I also wouldn't have a problem with a god that accidentally set events into motion that culminated in us. I look at our world and see not only imperfection, but pain and suffering as a constant condition for many. This isn't my reason for my lack of belief in God, but even if I did believe I wouldn't be worshiping the guy because of it. I don't buy an argument that demands I throw away my reasoning for the sake of a guy that we apparently know nothing about. If logic is the first thing sacrificed when a flaw in the description of God is discovered, I'm off the bus. I also am pretty jaded on the whole 'mysterious ways' stuff. Is Hitler really that mysterious? Was that seriously the best path we could have possibly gone down? I argue that it sure as hell was not. If that's arrogant of me, well, consider me arrogant.

[jesterhawk]

Think of it like this. Image that you lived in a 2D only world. Everything was flat as a pancake (and even thinner). There was no dimension to anything at all. Further, this was all you knew. Now, imagine that someone who lived in a 3D world owns the page that your 2D world and entire existence lives upon. This person would be God.

Taking from this, supposed for whatever reason, the 3D person decided to take a pencil and strike it completely through your 2D world sheet. What would you see? You would not see a pencil because it has struck your world perpendicular (or at some angle) and you can not see anything outside of your 2D world. And how would you explain what you saw? Given that all your references are only in 2D, I challenge that it would be impossible to explain the pencil sticking through the 2D world sheet.

Now lets add that the 3D person sent a message to one of the people in the 2D world (call him 2D2 for sake of understanding), and even though he had never seen a pencil act like this but takes it on faith that what he was told was true (and as it happens in our example it is). Suppose that 2D2 attempted to describe what has happened to you (a 2D person) and all the rest of the 2D people. How would they react? Especially since some very bright 2D person would bring up the fact that in order for the suddenly appeared shape to be a pencil it would have look like a line since in the 2D world the pencil would is flat and has no depth. However they can clearly see that the shape circular in form. Therefore, a large group of them decided that 2D2 is wrong and declares him crazy/fanatical/nut/etc. It matters little that he is right because all the evidence in the 2D world points to the fact that he MUST be wrong. However, the fact that the 3D world is outside of their understanding, the only way to know the truth is to take on faith that what the person in the 3D world said was true.

It is the same with God. He exists outside of realm/plane and is not bound by every bit of valid logic that applies to the this realm/plane. Just like the 3D world was not bound by the rules of 2D world. And we, like those in the 2D world, would have to take some things on faith that God has told us in order to know the truth. And with God it is even more than that because he has proven to be real in many ways. But just like those who were bound to the 2D world that would not accept 2D2 explanation as truth because every fact available to them deduced that the 3D world was imaginary and not real, some here are bound to this realm and will not consider the possibilities and some will not even entertain any notion of God (or the concept of a 3D world from the 2D perspective) unless God physically sits down and tells them it is real (even though image exactly how would a 3D person come and sit with a 2D person). And the funny thing about this is that Jesus did just that (was 3D and became 2D for us and has returned to 3D) and people still don't believe.

So, I can see your points and understand that they are valid from a certain point of view. However, once we add God (the true God that exists in infinite amounts of wisdom, power, authority, etc and not within our realm of existence) to the mix, then your logic may not be as valid as you think just like the limited logic of the 2D world does not always extend to the expanded 3D world. Of course, we can see the fingerprints of God everywhere just like the 2D people could see the pencil, but could not fully understand it.

In the end, many here and around the world are trying to define God, but fail to realize that parts of him are just not definable by our terms and limited (2D) understanding because he is beyond (3D) our limits.

Love in Christ,
JH

[Juan_Bottom]

Er.. sorry, but this is not entirely correct. Among other issues, while God and Christ are seperate, they are also one and therefore share the same names.

Err sorry, but this is not entirely correct. Among other issues: Jesus Christ may be an Egyptian God named Horus?


Thus by the Christian law you go would go to hell for worshiping Christ - the Christian God?

No. And I think you are smart enough to recognize this is not what I said or implied.

Just making a point about complicating things until no one can understand them.

And another thing that I never got... because I hear this a lot; If God and Christ are the same, doesn't that open up a whole new can of worms on the whole free will thing? God can't interfere, God can interfere...

[jonesthecurl]

JH - eloquent as this is - it's just restating "god is GOD so we can't understand him", with a new analogy, while adding in as an aside "Jesus was here and he was real and he was God" as nothing but an assertion. It also seems to indicate that the bible tell us nothing useful about god.
Except that every so often he might jab us with a pencil.

[PLAYER57832]

Er.. sorry, but this is not entirely correct. Among other issues, while God and Christ are seperate, they are also one and therefore share the same names.

Err sorry, but this is not entirely correct. Among other issues: Jesus Christ may be an Egyptian God named Horus?


Thus by the Christian law you go would go to hell for worshiping Christ - the Christian God?

No. And I think you are smart enough to recognize this is not what I said or implied.

Just making a point about complicating things until no one can understand them.

And another thing that I never got... because I hear this a lot; If God and Christ are the same, doesn't that open up a whole new can of worms on the whole free will thing? God can't interfere, God can interfere...

Maybe I am just tired, but I really don't see why it would be any more of a problem. Care to explain what you mean?

[jesterhawk]

JH - eloquent as this is - it's just restating "god is GOD so we can't understand him", with a new analogy, while adding in as an aside "Jesus was here and he was real and he was God" as nothing but an assertion. It also seems to indicate that the bible tell us nothing useful about god.
Except that every so often he might jab us with a pencil.

I agree on my restating the point and I did that because some restated their points. Perhaps it is best to agree to disagree at this point.

As for the bible not telling us anything, that is not correct. To take the 2D-3D world example, the Bible is basically a giant letter from the 3D world person introducing and explaining some things about him and his world (heaven). So it gives us some knowledge about the God, the 3D person, but it in no way gives us the complete depth of God or the 3D world (heaven).

JH

[jonesthecurl]

JH, for someone who holds such a fundamental-believer point of view, you are a reasonable person. Frankly, when I saw the "agree to disagree" thing come up again, i quickly skimmed through your posts, expecting to find that you'd accused me (us) of "missing the obvious" or "being blind to the truth" like many posters do. You have not done that, you have always tried to explain your own position (as I mostly do myself) without insult or condescension.

Thank you for that.

But it would seem to me that at the end of the day the only thing going for your side of this debate is "I have faith"...

I would suggest that the average suicide bomber (and especially the latest "body bomber", a worrying developement indeed) invalidates this argument.

You see, those guys have faith. Faith deep enoughto become "martyrs". And yet, I don't think we weould disagree about them being in error.

Faith in and of itself cannot be enough. Because it is demonstrably true that there are many people in the world that have stronger faith than most people that profess themselves to be Christian. People that we can I think all agree to be at the very least misled.

You have to both have faith and be right.

But it is faith that tells you whether you're right.

You can see my problem with accepting your point of view, I think.

[jesterhawk]

JH, for someone who holds such a fundamental-believer point of view, you are a reasonable person. Frankly, when I saw the "agree to disagree" thing come up again, i quickly skimmed through your posts, expecting to find that you'd accused me (us) of "missing the obvious" or "being blind to the truth" like many posters do. You have not done that, you have always tried to explain your own position (as I mostly do myself) without insult or condescension.

Thank you for that.

Your welcome. I do try, but I do have my moments. LOL! Also, I believe that if I can not at least defend my faith without resorting to insults then I make a very poor believer. Of course, you don't have to agree with my reasoning, but at least I can state why I do believe what I do. Also, I have met a great many from other faiths, not unlike the ones you mention with the except they are not terrorists (at least not that I know of LOL) and they do believe with a great passion and are very intelligent people.

But it would seem to me that at the end of the day the only thing going for your side of this debate is "I have faith"...

This is true. I did do my research though. I read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell (sp?) shortly after I became a Christian so that I could know if what I believe was based solely on what one could call a myth without any backing. I found the book fascinating. Admittedly, some of his evidence can be argued is not very convincing or not proof of anything. But there was a few gems in there. I read it over 15 years ago and I am afraid that that I would have to refresh myself to make sure I didn't leave something important out. I will try and find my copy (if it didn't happen to be in the two boxes that the movers lost when I moved from NJ to TX) and see if I can find one of those gems for everyone here to take a look at.

I would suggest that the average suicide bomber (and especially the latest "body bomber", a worrying developement indeed) invalidates this argument.

You see, those guys have faith. Faith deep enoughto become "martyrs". And yet, I don't think we weould disagree about them being in error.

You are right and I see your point.

Faith in and of itself cannot be enough. Because it is demonstrably true that there are many people in the world that have stronger faith than most people that profess themselves to be Christian. People that we can I think all agree to be at the very least misled.

This is a very true statement and the part about most people professing to be christians not having a strong faith is a very sad reality. I think that might be why some of them resort to name calling. You present a very good case and they have no answer. Then instead of simply saying they do not know the answer, they resort to insults (at least I think that might be the case) like that has ever helped win an argument. I have seen it many times, "Oh yeah, well, um, um, er, then you must just be stupid." And I shake my head as the one who posed a good argument walks away. I like what my pastor often says to people like that (because he will walk up to them and rebuke them and challenge them to find the answer or stop acting like they believe), he says, "Shake your head. Do you hear that rattling, it is your screw loose. Now go get it fixed before you speak to anyone again." LOL! I want to laugh every time I hear that but sometimes it is not the right moment.

You have to both have faith and be right.

But it is faith that tells you whether you're right.

You can see my problem with accepting your point of view, I think.

Yes, I can see your problem and agree with you. If one can not back up their faith, then what good is believing in it. I might as well worship something more concrete like sheetrock or sidewalks. And that is why I researched, like I mentioned above. I just haven't used that information in years and have a good idea of what it says but would rather refrain from half saying something and messing it up. That is why I want to look it up. Besides I think it would be interesting to hear everyone's responses.

Shortly after becoming a Christian, I went to college for engineering and met a great many highly intelligent people. Back then (1993-1999, yes that is six years, but I had to take time off and go part time at points because I had my first child in 94 and second in 96), I used to be able to rattle a bunch of reasoning off the tip of my tongue. But when no one challenges you in years, you tend to forget some portions. But I always loved the debate, especially when I won the argument. Which in all truth happened about a third of the time.

Love in Christ,
JH

[MeDeFe]

There's one crucial difference that you're missing.

Apply your mind to any field of science and you stand at least a chance of understanding the equations and instruments.

The opposite is claimed for god, no matter how we try we cannot understand god. We can only know of god what god reveals.

It's a qualitative difference of "not understanding", the one you don't understand because you haven't studied it, the other you don't understand because it is impossible.

No, my point is that there is no difference and I stand by it. The difference is that you don't understand the religious perspective. But, compare that to people who don't understand science as you do. In reality, the only difference is the method of knowing, not the ability to know and understand.

Some things are left open, in both science and in religion. Scientists can be as prone to ignore that as religious individuals. There is the "jury of peers" to keep scientists "honest" (if you will), but folks still hold their own personal opinions, beliefs that go well beyond anything that could be published.

Then please, explain how the two are the same and don't just tell me I don't get it. I'll restate my points, please tell me precisely where I go wrong.

Any fairly intelligent person who spends a decade studying and applies themselves should be able to understand the science behind the findings that are relevant to their field of study (or at least most of it). That is what I mean when I say science is "readily accessible to an inquiring mind", not that everyone can understand it as soon as they see it.

Knowledge about god, on the other hand, is declared impossible. That's one of the few things, maybe even the only thing, that believers from all religions and denominations agree on (apart from some gnostic movements): humans cannot understand god's mind.
Any knowledge about god has to be revealed by god, a person could spend a lifetime thinking about god and still know nothing. Any knowledge about god comes from an authoritative source (Bible, Qur'an, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, the Vedas, you name it) and must be taken at face value. Because it's the word of god it must be true (all of it) and anything that seems contradictory within the revealed knowledge is because we are lacking.


Not understanding the science behind some findings and not understanding god are completely different things as I see it. player, you said you disagree, but please tell me in more detail why, maybe give an alternative account to my view of understanding science and understanding god.

[notyou2]

There are still gnostics living????? I thought we killed them all in the name of christ.

[2dimes]

JH - eloquent as this is - it's just restating "god is GOD so we can't understand him", with a new analogy, while adding in as an aside "Jesus was here and he was real and he was God" as nothing but an assertion. It also seems to indicate that the bible tell us nothing useful about god.
Except that every so often he might jab us with a pencil.

Scripture reference please.

[jonesthecurl]

"And lo, Ohab was walking in the desert for forty days and forty night.
and a vast chasm did open up before him.
And the voice of the Lord came unto him saying,
"don't worry flatman, it's only a pencil."

Spurius 3,64.

[pimpdave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oFcBHAklc8

[Juan_Bottom]

Maybe I am just tired, but I really don't see why it would be any more of a problem. Care to explain what you mean?

God can't make a giant floating sign in the sky to let us know that he actually does exist. Because that effects free will.
But he can take the form of a man and walk around curing lepers and coming back from the dead because that doesn't effect free will.

I never understood that one.

[MeDeFe]

'Affect', Juan, 'to affect'.

[Juan_Bottom]

Not to threadjack,

'Affect', Juan, 'to affect'.

*angrily looks up proper definitions*

I thought that if something was influenced by something supernatural, then you would use the word 'effect.'
But I was wrong(maybe), you got me.

[mpjh]

'Affect', Juan, 'to affect'.

The proper word is "affect," Juan, "to affect."

punctuation and fractured sentence corrected

[Symmetry]

'Affect', Juan, 'to affect'.

The proper word is "affect," Juan, "to affect."

The punctuation and fractured sentence have been corrected.

Yay! I love grammer nazi threads

whose next?

[MeDeFe]

'Affect', Juan, 'to affect'.

The proper word is "affect," Juan, "to affect."

punctuation and fractured sentence corrected

It was an intentional ellipsis.

The second line of your post should read "Punctuation and fracturing of the sentence corrected."

[pimpdave]

'Affect', Juan, 'to affect'.

The proper word is "affect," Juan, "to affect."

punctuation and fractured sentence corrected

It was an intentional ellipsis.

The second line of your post should read "Punctuation and fracturing or the sentence corrected."

The second line of your post should read "Punctuation and fracturing or the sentence corrected."

fracturing or the

or

[jesterhawk]

Then please, explain how the two are the same and don't just tell me I don't get it. I'll restate my points, please tell me precisely where I go wrong.

Ok, I will tackle this, but begin with that you are not wrong. I just have a caveat to what you said. Let me explain.

Any fairly intelligent person who spends a decade studying and applies themselves should be able to understand the science behind the findings that are relevant to their field of study (or at least most of it). That is what I mean when I say science is "readily accessible to an inquiring mind", not that everyone can understand it as soon as they see it.

Correct and no argument.

Knowledge about god, on the other hand, is declared impossible. That's one of the few things, maybe even the only thing, that believers from all religions and denominations agree on (apart from some gnostic movements): humans cannot understand god's mind.
Any knowledge about god has to be revealed by god, a person could spend a lifetime thinking about god and still know nothing. Any knowledge about god comes from an authoritative source (Bible, Qur'an, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, the Vedas, you name it) and must be taken at face value. Because it's the word of god it must be true (all of it) and anything that seems contradictory within the revealed knowledge is because we are lacking.

Correct with a caveat. The authoritative source for me is the Bible, so I will speak from that point of view.

The Bible contains information that can verify itself to a point. For example, of all the prophecies about Jesus there are many very compelling ones in the book of Isaiah. Now, one can make the claim that the Bible text of the old testament was altered to "Fit" into what Jesus did in the new and there is not a good argument against that save one. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in late 1940s and mid 1950s. The documents date to well before Jesus appeared and walked the earth. Of all the text found (both Biblical and secular), there is a complete copy of the book of Isaiah that dates back to between 100 BC to about 300 BC. If we take a look at these prophecies which we can now verify came before Jesus and see how they match up, we can discover if there is a potential element of divine influence within the text. From that, we can see if there is chance of anything that is a verifiable that influence from God was in place. There are many that I could site and I could even see an argument against. But I find some that are very hard to refute.

• He was numbered among transgressors (Isaiah 53:12) - This refers to how the messiah would die among transgressors. Since crucifixion was reserved as a final punishment for those they did not trust to be slaves, it was not a common sentence. And it would be impossible for the Israelites to coerce the Romans into crucifying Jesus among other sinners. A bit compelling.
• He was pierced (Isaiah 53:5) - This one is a really interesting one. Remember that the Israelites were looking for the Messiah (and the Jews still are). So, the concept that he would be killed in one fashion or another was not exactly a common principle. Furthermore, when this was written (hundreds of years before Christ), there was not a Roman empire that was crucifying and taking over the world. To predict that the Messiah would be pierced (with comes from both the crucifixion points and the piercing in his side) is very compelling.
• There are others like that he would be from a virgin birth (but how do you prove that), that he would be in a rich man's tomb (but one could say Joseph knew that one and thus manufactured it), he would be called the son of God (but again one could say that was manufactured since the Jewish people knew the prophecy), etc.

And there are other books with other equally interest prophecies. Could one argue against these, sure just like we can argue against evolution. However, it does make it interesting and a bit compelling.

To then add my caveat, if we study our faith and belief and find reason to be able to stand on it as fact (by things like above) even if one might say it has only convinced us, then when we find something that we do not understand in the Bible we can extrapolate that it is most likely our lack of understanding instead of a lack of divine inspiration in the Word or in God.

Not understanding the science behind some findings and not understanding god are completely different things as I see it. player, you said you disagree, but please tell me in more detail why, maybe give an alternative account to my view of understanding science and understanding god.

Agreed, they are different. If we don't understand how a black hole works it is different than not understand the mind of God.


Love in Christ,
JH

[joecoolfrog]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

[jesterhawk]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

For point, the scroll containing Isaiah dated back to past 100BC which is what I was remarking on. Second, they mention of him but not as a directly given name. I can refer to you in many ways without using your name and still explicitly mean you.

JH

[joecoolfrog]

The scrolls mainly date from 150 BC to 70 AD , they were found close to where Jesus supposedly lived and preached, they were written by a deeply Mesianic sect and yet they dont mention Jesus once.......Mmmmm

For point, the scroll containing Isaiah dated back to past 100BC which is what I was remarking on. Second, they mention of him but not as a directly given name. I can refer to you in many ways without using your name and still explicitly mean you.

JH

Simply not true, just wishfull thinking and another attempt to disguise an inconvenient truth. implied or otherwise
there no mentiom of Jesus, his disciples, his works or miracles. Believe what you wish but consider this, what sort of belief requires distortions, huge leaps of imagination or plain dishonesty ?