Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[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.

142

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Leibnizian argument: Debunking Christianity: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

And the the Cosmological argument about the First Cause, it’s exemption from cause is essentially special pleading. You’ll have to explain how or why the First Cause is exempt.[/quote]

The First Cause is exempt by definition. For something to cause and yet not be caused it cannot have any sort of a cause. If it did, it would not be the first cause, it would be the second or third. And uncaused-cause, necessarily must not be cause and yet be able to cause. Which is the case here.

I don’t think the author did a sufficient job of debunking the argument. He argued extensively about the Principal of Sufficient reason, which is a long way of saying that if it exists, it must have been caused by something else. You cannot assume anything like a “contingent yet independent” being with out some sort of a priori proof. Saying they do is simply not sufficient…You need to identify that which is exists and is not caused or effected. He uses an example of ‘matter-energy’ but that doesn’t make sense either, where did this ‘matter energy’ come from. If it just is, then prove that. First, we don’t “know” matter-energy to exist in the first place. Second, if we did “know” we would have to further prove that all it’s properties exists with out cause, for no reason. He also argues the principals like ‘triangles have three angles’ stand alone, but that’s simply not true. While the principal sufficiently explains something about triangles, it does not necessarily mean that it stands alone…Actually it is born of mathematical principles. Angles are something and triangles are something, so right there you have at least two necessities required exist for that statement to be true and if you want to get really high and think about the properties with in the statement, ‘triangles have three angles’ you can see that the principle does not stand alone, but that it is assembled from other things.
Lastly, he seems to ignore the basics of the Cosmological form that is a breaking down of “things” or “beings”. You cannot rip things apart eternally you either run out of ‘material’ or your run in to something that cannot be broken apart. The latter being more likely.

He made some legit criticisms about the Principal of Sufficient reason, but it hardly does away with the Cosmological form. The biggest problem is with the name, “Sufficient” is not necessary. Necessity is what’s needed. It is the basis on which the theoretical science of cosmology is based. It is what atheist cosmologists try and yet fail to debunk, at least so far have.

Atheists have an easy job, they have to prove that something can come from nothing. All they need is one example of it. Problem is, that does not exist. Since we cannot emulate nothingness, it can never be empirically tested.
[/quote]

It does exist and it happens all the time, do a quick search on quantum events.[/quote]
Quantum events happen in space time as a result of the space’s properties that is energy rich and at least has zero point energy which isn’t nothing.

143

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Any god worth believing in would put more importance in the way one lived their life than their belief in a god.[/quote]
Any God worth believing in wouldn’t care what you think He should put more importance in. He wouldn’t and doesn’t care what I think either. He’s God and we ain’t. He tells us.[/quote]

Why does he tell us?

He only has that power over you because you give him that power which actually makes you more powerful than him.

Whether there is a god or not has no real impact on my life. It may have an impact on my afterlife however I am happy to take that chance. I will just go on trying to do my best by people.

144

[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

145

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Someone name me something that has been proven to exist without physical evidence? Even objects that we cannot see are proven true by the effects they have on other objects:

For instance:

  • Even though Black holes cannot be seen, they can be located based on the gravitational pull on the objects around them.

It is difficult to use pure logic to prove the existence of God as we have no way of verifying this. Previous logical arguments we’ve made into the existence of objects we cannot see can be proven or dis proven by their effects on other things.
[/quote]

There is none that I am aware of, however there is physical evidence of God’s effects on others.[/quote]

As far as I am aware there is only physical evidence of the effect of the belief in God which is actually something totally different.

I would be very happy to see other evidence though more akin to what you mention.

146

[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.

147

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Leibnizian argument: Debunking Christianity: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

And the the Cosmological argument about the First Cause, it’s exemption from cause is essentially special pleading. You’ll have to explain how or why the First Cause is exempt.[/quote]

The First Cause is exempt by definition. For something to cause and yet not be caused it cannot have any sort of a cause. If it did, it would not be the first cause, it would be the second or third. And uncaused-cause, necessarily must not be cause and yet be able to cause. Which is the case here.

I don’t think the author did a sufficient job of debunking the argument. He argued extensively about the Principal of Sufficient reason, which is a long way of saying that if it exists, it must have been caused by something else. You cannot assume anything like a “contingent yet independent” being with out some sort of a priori proof. Saying they do is simply not sufficient…You need to identify that which is exists and is not caused or effected. He uses an example of ‘matter-energy’ but that doesn’t make sense either, where did this ‘matter energy’ come from. If it just is, then prove that. First, we don’t “know” matter-energy to exist in the first place. Second, if we did “know” we would have to further prove that all it’s properties exists with out cause, for no reason. He also argues the principals like ‘triangles have three angles’ stand alone, but that’s simply not true. While the principal sufficiently explains something about triangles, it does not necessarily mean that it stands alone…Actually it is born of mathematical principles. Angles are something and triangles are something, so right there you have at least two necessities required exist for that statement to be true and if you want to get really high and think about the properties with in the statement, ‘triangles have three angles’ you can see that the principle does not stand alone, but that it is assembled from other things.
Lastly, he seems to ignore the basics of the Cosmological form that is a breaking down of “things” or “beings”. You cannot rip things apart eternally you either run out of ‘material’ or your run in to something that cannot be broken apart. The latter being more likely.

He made some legit criticisms about the Principal of Sufficient reason, but it hardly does away with the Cosmological form. The biggest problem is with the name, “Sufficient” is not necessary. Necessity is what’s needed. It is the basis on which the theoretical science of cosmology is based. It is what atheist cosmologists try and yet fail to debunk, at least so far have.

Atheists have an easy job, they have to prove that something can come from nothing. All they need is one example of it. Problem is, that does not exist. Since we cannot emulate nothingness, it can never be empirically tested.
[/quote]

It does exist and it happens all the time, do a quick search on quantum events.[/quote]
Quantum events happen in space time as a result of the space’s properties that is energy rich and at least has zero point energy which isn’t nothing.[/quote]

Erm, no.

148

[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

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.

149

[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.

150

[quote]ron22 wrote:
Another misconception I’ve heard/noticed is that science and Christianity can’t get along. The farther along I am into getting my MD has only helped to solidify my faith. There’s just so much going on in such intricate and perfect order that it’s hard for me to think that life happend by chance. I love this quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: “All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not seen.”[/quote]

So you don’t believe in evolution?
Christianity is bullshit, pure and simple.

151

[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

152

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Any god worth believing in would put more importance in the way one lived their life than their belief in a god.[/quote]
Any God worth believing in wouldn’t care what you think He should put more importance in. He wouldn’t and doesn’t care what I think either. He’s God and we ain’t. He tells us.[/quote]

Why does he tell us?

He only has that power over you because you give him that power which actually makes you more powerful than him.

Whether there is a god or not has no real impact on my life. It may have an impact on my afterlife however I am happy to take that chance. I will just go on trying to do my best by people.[/quote]
Fair enough.

153

[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]

The problem with Youtube videos on this forum is that they don’t like having the quote tag attached directly to their ass end. A simple touch of the Return/Enter key fixes that.

154

The Human mind isn’t capable of understanding how something could always be there and how something always will be there. We simply do not have the ability to comprehend such. So nobody can attempt to argue against Christianity based on logic, and logic alone.

155

Thanks Mak. Btw Bleach doesn’t seem to be making sense right now is aizen a hollow or something else?

156

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Someone name me something that has been proven to exist without physical evidence? Even objects that we cannot see are proven true by the effects they have on other objects:

For instance:

  • Even though Black holes cannot be seen, they can be located based on the gravitational pull on the objects around them.

It is difficult to use pure logic to prove the existence of God as we have no way of verifying this. Previous logical arguments we’ve made into the existence of objects we cannot see can be proven or dis proven by their effects on other things.
[/quote]

There is none that I am aware of, however there is physical evidence of God’s effects on others.[/quote]

Well actually there is:

  1. Order. Basically, its as if the universe was fine tuned for our existance. I can elaborate if anyone wants.

  2. Assuming the universe had a beginning, and the beginning was the Big Bang, how does an explosive event, which requires the input of energy (explosive events need a catalyst), get started? What was this catalyst, and where did it come from?

  3. The law of entropy. The universe and all that is in it is in a constant state of decay, moving from order to disorder. How does a universe headed towards DISORDER produce ORDER?

157

I don’t know why there’s even an argument on whether or not the universe is eternal or was created. Science has clearly shown that the universe is expanding, and there is cosmic background microwave radiation, both that point to the big bang, which proves the universe has a beginning. Except, I believe that someone made it happen, and that it didn’t happen by the roll of dice.

158

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Thanks Mak. Btw Bleach doesn’t seem to be making sense right now is aizen a hollow or something else?[/quote]

I think he’s whatever Ichigo turned into when fighting in Hueco Mundo. Stay tuned for Bleach thread bump.

159

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Someone name me something that has been proven to exist without physical evidence? Even objects that we cannot see are proven true by the effects they have on other objects:

For instance:

  • Even though Black holes cannot be seen, they can be located based on the gravitational pull on the objects around them.

It is difficult to use pure logic to prove the existence of God as we have no way of verifying this. Previous logical arguments we’ve made into the existence of objects we cannot see can be proven or dis proven by their effects on other things.
[/quote]

There is none that I am aware of, however there is physical evidence of God’s effects on others.[/quote]

As far as I am aware there is only physical evidence of the effect of the belief in God which is actually something totally different.

I would be very happy to see other evidence though more akin to what you mention.[/quote]

160

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]ron22 wrote:
Another misconception I’ve heard/noticed is that science and Christianity can’t get along. The farther along I am into getting my MD has only helped to solidify my faith. There’s just so much going on in such intricate and perfect order that it’s hard for me to think that life happend by chance. I love this quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: “All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not seen.”[/quote]

So you don’t believe in evolution?
Christianity is bullshit, pure and simple.[/quote]

Nice logic claps

P.S. The more I read, the more I realise you didn’t even read what he said. The man never said anything about not recognizing that evolution happened.

P.P.S. I recognize evolution.