Misconceptions of Christianity

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Or otherwise put it is a cop out. God of the gaps but with longer words.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Kalam argument has flaws in the causal premise.

“…there is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable.” – J. L. Mackie.

Also:

B = things that begin to exist
C = things that are caused
u = the universe

  1. all B is C
  2. u is B
  3. u is C

Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist, “all B” is equivalent to “u”, thus rendering the actual argument circular:

  1. u is C
  2. u is B
  3. u is C[/quote]
    I don’t think you watched the video since the argument is presented not as a syllogism but as 3 exhaustive dilemmas . The first quote only has weight against the causal premise in an empirical approach or an inductive generalization of reality only if your argument “the universe is the only thing that began to exist” stands. It has no weight against the causal premise in a metaphysical approach or as a necessary truth that applies to all reality and logic especially when one considers what nothing really is. It isn’t a dark “empty” void as many of us imagine as there is still space-time, zero point energy and a rich sea of sub atomic particles resulting from the properties of the space. Nothing is literally nothing, at the singularity there is no space, time etc…
    Second for your argument that the universe is the only thing that began to exist. You have to hold that nothing else came into existence since then or that things coming into existence is equivalent to the universe coming into existence. I did not exist when the universe began to exist, but I began to exist and exist now. The stuff I am made of doesn’t make me who I am since all the atoms of our body are replaced periodically over time. I would watch the video and if you want to go to where your objection is answered go watch at 38:00.[/quote]

Problem is that none of what you say above relates to the real current theories of the origin of the universe.[/quote]
Here’s the video, so you say the big bang theory isn’t current? - YouTube [/quote]

Exactly. The so called big bang theory is now seen as a description of a local part of the currently more popular expansion theory.

The whole first there was nothing and then it exploded is about 20 years out of date.[/quote]
It would be nice if you put some links for this so called expansion theory[/quote]

I love the way you say ‘so called expansion theory’ it would be like me referring to the ‘so called bible’

In fact I got my theories muddled, the one you should be looking up is inflation theory (expansion theory is related)

Here is a link to get you started

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]
Ur madara so who can trust you =P. Anyways you cannot have an infinite amount of causes going back in time because you end up with an infinite regress and nothing ever ends up happening which leads back to the first cause. This first cause is uncaused and exists out of shear necessity.[/quote]

Firstly who says you can’t and secondly saying God Did it doesn’t really answer any questions it just poses more.[/quote]
Its just logic for example let say that the universe is eternal and all of the other properties are the same as we see today or that time goes backwards an infinite amount of time for the universe. It would have taken an infinite amount of time for this conversation to have occurred which means it would have never happened.[/quote]

Time is a human construct though. Relatively this conversation could have taken an infinite amount of time.[/quote]
Using time as an example is helpful although not necessary to show how the logic works. One doesn’t need to rely on temporal examples, contingent cause and effects work as well.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]
If this is directed at me Ill try to answer it later since you actually put some thought into your arguments, however Ill wait for pat to answer.

A page out of Summa Theologica if anyone wants some logic and God’s existence. I’ll be here all night, okay kidding. I am actually going to bed or I would have put these into simpler words (possibly, I do not assume to be more simple than Aquinas, but try).

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The bottom line is Augustine was right. There is a universal invisible church consisting of all true believers who will ever be redeemed regardless of what specific denomination they belong to. There also is and always has been a visible church consisting of those who claim the name of Christ regardless of whether they are true believers or not. They are known by their fruits which are both sound doctrine and a godly, though certainly imperfect life. One without the other indicates nothing except how insidious spiritual deception can be.

BTW, I am well aware that you being a rather intelligent and thoughtful chap will no doubt find a bunch more questions in this post, but I’m doing the best I know how.[/quote]

…thank you for that answer. Some follow-up questions: why do you believe you follow the right path in christianity, and how do you discern that others are wrong? From someone else’s perspective, you could be wrong and they could be right…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your beliefs differ from Tiribulus’, yet you both are christians. A couple of weeks ago there was an “incident” with push who believes something else, and yet is a christian. There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

Push didn’t believe something else, he is a creationist and I am not. In the end that shit doesn’t matter.
Jesus paraphrased all the scripture in Matthew when he was asked what are the greatest commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. He further said the two are equal in weight and that all the laws of the prophets are based on this.

Now, as an atheist, none of this shit will make sense. Among Christians, we are typically more similar than different but we are all different and we like to argue differences…
God is not as close minded as we are…[/quote]

…i think you’re skirting the issue pat. Misconceptions of christianity exist because those that proclaim to be christian sometimes act in a way that contradicts their religion, but justify that behaviour by citing scripture. There may be consensus on the main tenets of christianity amongst all christian factions, but the argueing makes you look fractured…

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

…how do you know you’re right about what you believe, and not wrong?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your beliefs differ from Tiribulus’, yet you both are christians. A couple of weeks ago there was an “incident” with push who believes something else, and yet is a christian. There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

Push didn’t believe something else, he is a creationist and I am not. In the end that shit doesn’t matter.
Jesus paraphrased all the scripture in Matthew when he was asked what are the greatest commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. He further said the two are equal in weight and that all the laws of the prophets are based on this.

Now, as an atheist, none of this shit will make sense. Among Christians, we are typically more similar than different but we are all different and we like to argue differences…
God is not as close minded as we are…[/quote]
Leaving Push out of this specifically, whatever this is you just described it is not the biblical Christian gospel. I may make enemies of you and every other person on this site, but God has been flawlessly faithful to me and I cannot stand silent without contending for His word and against this neo unitarian dilution of the truth you have here espoused.
The God of the bible is far MORE “close minded” than we are. His infinite holy mind is capable of nothing other than absolute absolutes. I know how this is gonna go and I will take no joy in it, but I must.

You can start by calling me a self righteous, intolerant, judgmental intellectual antique who represents all the reasons more people don’t believe.[/quote]

…you do realise that other christians say the same thing but may very well believe things you won’t agree with?

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

…how do you know you’re right about what you believe, and not wrong?
[/quote]

Reason and faith. If you tell me premarital sex falls within the Christian moral sphere, I can clearly see that you’re wrong. Then, there are things I could be wrong about, but they have no salvational bearing. To keep it simple; a disagreement over the actual existence of the prodigal son as a specific individual, or merely as a character in a parable. It doesn’t matter… It might be a bit of fun to argue it, either way, for whatever reason one needs to argue about it. However, it doesn’t have any bearing on being a Christian or not.

For individual points of Christian belief…Well, I’ve stated my case on a number of issues. Entire threads could be devoted to one issue at a time.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your beliefs differ from Tiribulus’, yet you both are christians. A couple of weeks ago there was an “incident” with push who believes something else, and yet is a christian. There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

Push didn’t believe something else, he is a creationist and I am not. In the end that shit doesn’t matter.
Jesus paraphrased all the scripture in Matthew when he was asked what are the greatest commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. He further said the two are equal in weight and that all the laws of the prophets are based on this.

Now, as an atheist, none of this shit will make sense. Among Christians, we are typically more similar than different but we are all different and we like to argue differences…
God is not as close minded as we are…[/quote]
Leaving Push out of this specifically, whatever this is you just described it is not the biblical Christian gospel. I may make enemies of you and every other person on this site, but God has been flawlessly faithful to me and I cannot stand silent without contending for His word and against this neo unitarian dilution of the truth you have here espoused.
The God of the bible is far MORE “close minded” than we are. His infinite holy mind is capable of nothing other than absolute absolutes. I know how this is gonna go and I will take no joy in it, but I must.

You can start by calling me a self righteous, intolerant, judgmental intellectual antique who represents all the reasons more people don’t believe.[/quote]

…you do realise that other christians say the same thing but may very well believe things you won’t agree with?
[/quote]

So?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
There may be consensus on the main tenets of christianity amongst all christian factions, but the argueing makes you look fractured…
[/quote]

Mankind is fractured. We don’t have any belief that the fullness of truth will win the day on earth. We’re stuck sharing our beliefs, trying to convince others. It’s just the way the world appears to work, on just about anything.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Or otherwise put it is a cop out. God of the gaps but with longer words.[/quote]

You’re going to have to go ahead and back that up with something. The cosmological argument has existed for over 2 millenniums, stand yet unrefuted. If you have the refutation to it, by God let’s here it.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Cool, makes sense. Thanks pat.

Followup question: Could God be the universe itself? Can the causer become the caused?[/quote]

No, then he’d cease to be the uncaused-cause; which must necessarily exist out side the causal chain. Now that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a little bit of God in all existence. The phrase “God is in the details” applies here.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your beliefs differ from Tiribulus’, yet you both are christians. A couple of weeks ago there was an “incident” with push who believes something else, and yet is a christian. There are many more different kinds of christians who all believe in the monotheistic god of Abraham. Is that enough to believe in a way that you’re comfortable with, as long as it’s a belief in Jesus and his father?
[/quote]

Push didn’t believe something else, he is a creationist and I am not. In the end that shit doesn’t matter.
Jesus paraphrased all the scripture in Matthew when he was asked what are the greatest commandments. Love God and love your neighbor. He further said the two are equal in weight and that all the laws of the prophets are based on this.

Now, as an atheist, none of this shit will make sense. Among Christians, we are typically more similar than different but we are all different and we like to argue differences…
God is not as close minded as we are…[/quote]
Leaving Push out of this specifically, whatever this is you just described it is not the biblical Christian gospel. I may make enemies of you and every other person on this site, but God has been flawlessly faithful to me and I cannot stand silent without contending for His word and against this neo unitarian dilution of the truth you have here espoused.
The God of the bible is far MORE “close minded” than we are. His infinite holy mind is capable of nothing other than absolute absolutes. I know how this is gonna go and I will take no joy in it, but I must.

You can start by calling me a self righteous, intolerant, judgmental intellectual antique who represents all the reasons more people don’t believe.[/quote]

Then you did not understand what you read.

[Edit] I should not have left it at that. I don’t want to get into a scripture pasting contest. But God gives plenty of “outs” in scripture to. Those of us who have been given the faith have the most demanded of us. He did not create man to condemn them.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]

Show me. It better be good, too.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Without proving his existence.

Still special pleading. The universe could be without cause, any number of things could be claimed to be without cause to avoid a circular argument.[/quote]

I see what Tirib was talking about. This was a thread supposedly about misconceptions of what Christianity believes/does. And it turned into atheist arguing with Christians that our faith is wrong. I get it now. I see what you mean there my man.[/quote]

This thread was started to clear up misconceptions, not turn into a circle jerk for you and your faith-buddies.

Or am I mistaken there?[/quote]

Yes, clear up misconceptions. You are arguing about uncaused causes and infinite regression. Either way, Christians usually believe in God, matter of fact. The Uncaused causer. See, done. Topic finished at least the other Atheist/Agnostics get it. I mean they do ask follow up questions.[/quote]

I’m pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw. So often do people like me get the blame for apparently stifling debate. I wasn’t the one to bring up cosmological arguments. In fact I was responding to the OP. I would assume as the thread starter, he can take the thread where he wishes. I respond to his post, and you chime in claiming I’m apparently derailing the thread? I feel sorry for OP to have to be lumped in with such a small mind as yours.

Whatever, I’m done here. Have fun beating each other off.[/quote]

You pointed out a flaw with out actually pointing out anything? Where is the flaw?
You can answer after you are done beating off to framed picture of Karl Marx in your room…

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Time is a human construct though. Relatively this conversation could have taken an infinite amount of time.[/quote]

Uh no. Our usage of time is a human construct, however time is a measurement of relative movements. As long as there is relative movement time exists…Unless of course you claim to have been traveling at the speed of light when you typed your statement. Then you could claim you constructed your statement in zero time.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
On another note, can anyone here define what God actually is?

If so, how did you come to this conclusion?[/quote]

Oh, I love this question.

God is and is not the Tao

Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao.

Remember God’s statement, “I am” . . . there is so much packed into those two words when understood from a Daoist perspective.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The bottom line is Augustine was right. There is a universal invisible church consisting of all true believers who will ever be redeemed regardless of what specific denomination they belong to. There also is and always has been a visible church consisting of those who claim the name of Christ regardless of whether they are true believers or not. They are known by their fruits which are both sound doctrine and a godly, though certainly imperfect life. One without the other indicates nothing except how insidious spiritual deception can be.

BTW, I am well aware that you being a rather intelligent and thoughtful chap will no doubt find a bunch more questions in this post, but I’m doing the best I know how.[/quote]

…thank you for that answer. Some follow-up questions: why do you believe you follow the right path in christianity, and how do you discern that others are wrong? From someone else’s perspective, you could be wrong and they could be right…
[/quote](Please see my last post on the previous page)
Now that I’ve sat staring at this reply box for about 10 minutes musing over where to start let’s go with God’s providence. (man this is hard to do online) God’s all wise providence is that application of His power to His creation whereby he orders all things to His own purpose and glory. There is mountains of biblical evidence for this.

Believing that God would allow His essential truths in areas of faith or morals to perish from the earth until discovered by some modern person manifests a horrifically deficient understanding of the God we are talking about and is itself a reason to question someone’s knowledge of the Him regardless of the specific content. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are the best known classic examples of this though they are most certainly not alone. Also, believing that modern human discovery within the creation of God can alter and revise what He Himself has revealed in His Word is blasphemous idolatry for which there is also mountains of biblical evidence.

Every last syllable I’ve typed in this forum in any thread is consistently represented throughout the new testament era. (yes, there is another giant discussion in here) As I said, absolutely NOTHING I believe originated with or is unique to me or any other modern man sinfully presuming to improve upon God’s Word and providence. Like Sloth said, fallible sinful human understanding will never produce universal consensus on every point of doctrine in this life, however God in His providence has promised to personally preserve the essentials of saving faith and Christian morals on which every true believer agrees to this day.

Christians are Christians because we have been supernaturally resurrected from spiritual death to new life having been indwelt by the Spirit of the living God through self abandoning faith in the sacrifice of His Son. Not because we do our best to be good people and or defend the parts of the bible we like. The transformed set apart from the world in practice holy life we are commanded and strive to live is the indescribably joyous result. I can easily demonstrate from the bible that while I can never know for absolutely certain this side of heaven that anyone other than myself is saved, I most definitely can know in clear cases if they’re not. In not so clear cases, which there are some of those too, I am commanded, indeed all Christians are, to defend the truth, separate from the unrepentant obstinate offender and pray for their repentance and recovery to right standing with God.