DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on November 01, 2010, 03:12:55 PM
-
Yes, yes, I know that pretty much every thread devolves into this topic, but this is specifically directed toward this interesting "mock trial" between two strong proponents of each side.
Here's part one, out of fifteen parts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hOza8GTqk
I'm only up to part 7...so far it's pretty good. Both sides present very interesting arguments. The ultimate "verdict" from the audience is that Christianity wins, but keep in mind that the playing field is a church.
From what I can tell so far....the Christian side seeks to prove a few several tenets about Christianity, such as the need for a creator and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and based on these "truths," concludes that since these abnormalities are true, it is no problem that other Christian abnormalities, which cannot be proven, are also true.
The Atheist side, on the other hand, focuses on the aspects of Christianity that can be refuted by modern science, and states that since so many things can be refuted, when something historically difficult to refute such as the resurrection comes along, it's no problem to dismiss it.
It's quite long, but well-timed and well-structured...
In the end...I think that both sides present strong evidence intermingled with weak evidence...For example, I do feel that the Christian claim that existence of absolute morals demands a God is sort of ill-founded.
What say y'all?
-
I'd say that to claim there is a set of absolute morals is unfounded.
I guess I'll watch it though, and comment on it.
EDIT: Also, I'm skeptical right from the start on the topic. "Where does the evidence point?" There's no evidence for atheism. You can't prove there isn't a god or gods. You could analyze individual things in the Bible and judge their veracity, but whether or not they're true or false or unprovable is not evidence towards there being no gods.
-
Also, I'm skeptical right from the start on the topic. "Where does the evidence point?" There's no evidence for atheism. You can't prove there isn't a god or gods. You could analyze individual things in the Bible and judge their veracity, but whether or not they're true or false or unprovable is not evidence towards there being no gods.
Actually, that comes up. So keep watching! :tup
-
Right off the bat there's a bit of a strawman; ironically when he says he will not attack any strawmen. Atheism does not entail a gnostic denial of gods.
Also, he then says that atheists believe the universe has been here forever. wut
Another sort of false assumption is that the default status of the universe is non-existence. I don't understand why people think that.
Also, just because we can only trace the history of our universe until shortly after the Big Bang doesn't mean that something could not have existed before. Some argue that the most likely situation is a cycle of expansions/contractions.
Oh good, I knew there was going to be a point where someone starts bringing out big numbers as "proof." It's only if you view our universe with our place in it as a logical end-point that the number becomes vast. No-one looks at a beach and thinks "The odds of all these grains of sand coming together to form this specific beach is so vast, it must've been formed by some sort of beach god!"
-
Theism -- there is a god
Atheism -- there is no god
Agnosticism -- we cannot know whether or not there is a god
This is not Agnosticism vs Christianity...it's Atheism.
-
Theism -- there is a god
Atheism -- there is no god
Agnosticism -- we cannot know whether or not there is a god
This is not Agnosticism vs Christianity...it's Atheism.
I think we can't know whether there is a god or not. However, I don't believe in gods, so I am an atheist. To claim that all theists have a 100% pure belief in whatever god/gods they believe in is as silly as claiming all atheists have a pure conviction gods don't exist.
Atheism literally means "without gods". Babies are atheists. Dolphins, presumably, are atheists. A lot of agnostics (if they don't believe in gods) are atheists.
-
I'm continuing to comment here as the video goes on. First of all, I find it hilarious that he says equality is universal, absolute belief; has the guy never cracked open a history book? Like, ever?
Secondly, the whole "tomb is empty" thing presupposes a belief in the Bible etc. Not really much to say on that argument.
Thirdly, the argument "Why would people believe it if it wasn't true?" is not a good argument, simply because it could be extended to every single religion or belief system ever invented.
I'll note that basing a sort of argument around the resurrection is going to be tough simply because any argument for or against is going to be mired in fundamental uncertainty. It'll be really convincing to Christians and not at all convincing to atheists.
-
Yes, his latter points are very emotional and not verifiable.
And on this point:
I'll note that basing a sort of argument around the resurrection is going to be tough simply because any argument for or against is going to be mired in fundamental uncertainty. It'll be really convincing to Christians and not at all convincing to atheists.
I agree with you...Christians will say "It is an event which proves the deity of Christ, and therefore we should follow the scriptures that Christ endorses," while an Atheist would say "Well...it's just one thing we don't have irrefutable evidence for. While we can't necessarily disprove this event, there are enough events that we can disprove, so there is probably a logical explanation somewhere."
-
I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.
I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid. I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors :rollin
Continuing, I think the guy is spending too much time on going through various things in the Bible. It would make sense if he was arguing whether or not the Bible is 100% too. I don't think that showing how the Bible is wrong on a number of scientific or historical facts proves it isn't true; it just shows that a literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with our current scientific and historical perception of reality. It's not an argument for atheism, it's an argument against biblical literalism.
-
I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.
I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid. I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors :rollin
The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument. I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.
I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night. I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible. Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is. Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.
-
I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.
I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid. I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors :rollin
The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument. I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.
I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night. I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible. Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is. Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.
It's more or less impossible to say. It's hard to say where the universe starts or ends; if you can't measure it, if you can't get out of it, how can it be anything but infinite? Considering the mere existence of space and time requires matter, how do we not know that our plane or sphere of space and time is one of many?
You could be right. We have no idea. It's certainly an existing scientific theory that there are a number of "ripple" universes.
-
Craig's right in that Zindler's speech could've been delivered by any non-Christian. However, his definitions are still way off: he called deists "people who believe in God but are not Christians". :rollin
Once again, he's continuing to view humans as the logical end-point. I think that's a poor assumption.
-
Once again, he's continuing to view humans as the logical end-point. I think that's a poor assumption.
Who are you referring to? Because I feel that both of them do that to an extent.
-
Once again, he's continuing to view humans as the logical end-point. I think that's a poor assumption.
Who are you referring to? Because I feel that both of them do that to an extent.
What I mean is that if you look back from where we are, you say "Wow, the odds of us humans coming to be as a species is incredibly low. There must be a god." The odds of humans coming to be are low, but we only ascribe significance to that because we are humans.
When you get dealt a five-card hand in poker and you get a royal flush, you would probably freak out. You'd likely think the deck was rigged somehow, seeing as how the odds of you being dealt a royal flush are so astronomically low.
It's the same situation as above. You don't ascribe design to a poker hand where you've got 8 high, even though the odds of you getting that specific hand were as low as you getting a royal flush.
-
Once again, he's continuing to view humans as the logical end-point. I think that's a poor assumption.
Who are you referring to? Because I feel that both of them do that to an extent.
What I mean is that if you look back from where we are, you say "Wow, the odds of us humans coming to be as a species is incredibly low. There must be a god." The odds of humans coming to be are low, but we only ascribe significance to that because we are humans.
When you get dealt a five-card hand in poker and you get a royal flush, you would probably freak out. You'd likely think the deck was rigged somehow, seeing as how the odds of you being dealt a royal flush are so astronomically low.
It's the same situation as above. You don't ascribe design to a poker hand where you've got 8 high, even though the odds of you getting that specific hand were as low as you getting a royal flush.
Oh, I see. I think Craig was saying that in order for that process to reach the development of humanity (however inevitable it is) was unlikely in the time span of the solar system's life.
The back-and-forth debate ends at part 11. I'm going to get back to this later.
I don't think the Atheist debater is really that good...they could have picked someone else. Heck, I could've done a better job at supporting his position. He sets himself up constantly.
I think that Craig presented a well-organized argument--however, I do feel that he failed to acknowledge many points, such as the anti-Christian scientific evidence. He was also much more charismatic, and it is definitely difficult to see past that.
I'm thinking about going over it again, and creating a list. If I do, I'll be sure to post it. :tup
-
I stopped at the end of part 9. It's not a very good debate, with two not very good debaters (albeit I agree that Craig is superior).
Also, really I feel that it's not really a necessary debate. People can believe whatever they want. I don't think atheists should be attempting to convince other people to join them in the tent of non-belief. As long as I feel I'm not persecuted and separation of church and state remains firmly in place (which in Canada, is pretty secure) atheism isn't all that important to me.
-
I agree--it was more of a Christianity vs. Anti-Christianity debate. The Atheist position really didn't build up it's own position at all, as opposed to (unnecessarily) spending time on attacking Christianity (including the morals of Christianity, which is somewhat hypocritical). I mean, the whole minute-long assault on the authenticity of Daniel was a waste! What does that prove?
Anyway, I just get sick of all the other "youtube debates" with guys that focus more on dissing the other's intelligence, and rely on breaking down straw mans. For example, have you seen the user "patcondell"? Gets a lot of attention, and even though some of his points are valid, he creates such a hostile environment...
Even on these forums, things get brutal. It's encouraging to see a modern civilized discourse.
-
Well here's a very civilized video from the atheists viewpoint. As a person who is into more objective and logical reasoning it articulates my thoughts quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=player_embedded
-
That 'Big bang' argument argument sounds familiar...
-
Well here's a very civilized video from the atheists viewpoint. As a person who is into more objective and logical reasoning it articulates my thoughts quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=player_embedded
It's just because British guys sound smarter. :P
By the way, he says that the default position we are born with is "a lack of belief in gods." I would disagree, and say that we are born with the internal witness of a god, akin to self-consciousness or our sensory perceptions. In fact, you don't meet any Atheist children--they only turn away from the concept of God once presented with Atheist influences.
-
Frankly, I don't understand why atheists and Christians still have debates. The discussion is already doomed the minute they reach Christian dogmas. The scientist will give logical, sound arguments as to why it's impossible for this and that to be true, but the Christian will maintain his/her view because "It's just true. It's in the bible.". Then the discussion will usually meander into a debate about scriptural interpretation.
Dogma and reason fundamentally oppose each other. As religion remains dogmatic, it will always come into conflict with science. Trying to discuss a subject when one side relies on dogmatic thinking and the other on logic is pointless. It's impossible to reach an agreement.
-
Obviously a discussion of morality is going to be silly between the two--they appeal to two different sources.
But this debate is particularly about which accounts for the evidence the best. Obviously, both do account for the evidence. In fact, I could make something up, like a bunch of aliens wrote the gospels, and are performing an experiment, and it could account for the evidence. But the debate is on which is the most probable.
For example, based on the circumstances in which we live, in an organized, structured universe programmed by the laws of physics, and the fact that humans are set apart from other creatures due to our reasoning powers, is better accounted for by the existence of a creator than the nonexistence of a creator. Of course, you can get each one to work, and find explanations for why things are the way they are no matter which one you choose. The question is, which is a more probable explanation for the reason why things are the way they are?
The existence of a creator fits much more snugly with reality than the nonexistence of a creator. It's not a matter of a step-by-step proof of it. Obviously, we have yet to see a universally-accepted argument for either side. It is simply a matter of recognizing what is more plausible given the information we have.
-
Okay, but in this debate the Christians still use their Truths and the atheists still use science to reach their explanation. So I think my argument still stands.
The goal of a debate is always to reach an agreement. They can't reach an agreement by using their own set of arguments, like they do in this debate. So then perhaps this shouldn't have been called a debate, but just 2 sides giving their own explanation.
-
???
They don't use Christian theology at all. Even when the issue of Biblical inerrency came up, the debater agreed to suspend it to conduct a fair argument.
-
I don't think atheists should be attempting to convince other people to join them in the tent of non-belief.
This makes much more sense than the agendas that many mainstream atheists seem to have. It's as if they've incorporated religion into their non-belief and made a new belief system of their own. If there's no god then there's no reason not to believe in god.
-
Frankly, I don't understand why atheists and Christians still have debates. The discussion is already doomed the minute they reach Christian dogmas. The scientist will give logical, sound arguments as to why it's impossible for this and that to be true, but the Christian will maintain his/her view because "It's just true. It's in the bible.". Then the discussion will usually meander into a debate about scriptural interpretation.
Dogma and reason fundamentally oppose each other. As religion remains dogmatic, it will always come into conflict with science. Trying to discuss a subject when one side relies on dogmatic thinking and the other on logic is pointless. It's impossible to reach an agreement.
That may be true of some Christians, but I know a large number who could adequately defend their faith using logic and reason. To be entirely honest, you now are doing what you may accuse and despise so many Christians of doing which is blankly applying a label and stereotype to an entire group which is unfair and insulting.
-
I don't think atheists should be attempting to convince other people to join them in the tent of non-belief.
This makes much more sense than the agendas that many mainstream atheists seem to have. It's as if they've incorporated religion into their non-belief and made a new belief system of their own. If there's no god then there's no reason not to believe in god.
I totally agree. Atheism is now being spelled with a capital "A." It's unfortunate because many, many atheists are in disagreement, save on a single issue.
I predict that the fusion of Atheism and Christianity, two polar opposites, merges into Roman Catholicism. The official Catholic position is an allegorical, metaphorical interpretation of scripture, and that allows for evolution and other secularly acceptable things like that. It also holds a strong political grip on most every nation in the world. I would not be surprised if this heated debate exploded into a worldwide Catholic revival, crushing both hard-nosed skeptical atheists and Christian fundamentalists alike.
-
Well here's a very civilized video from the atheists viewpoint. As a person who is into more objective and logical reasoning it articulates my thoughts quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=player_embedded
It's just because British guys sound smarter. :P
By the way, he says that the default position we are born with is "a lack of belief in gods." I would disagree, and say that we are born with the internal witness of a god, akin to self-consciousness or our sensory perceptions. In fact, you don't meet any Atheist children--they only turn away from the concept of God once presented with Atheist influences.
Babies lack the cognitive capacity to form positive beliefs; hence, they are atheists.
And you do meet lots of atheist children. They're the ones whose parents don't raise them religious. I was an atheist child.
Not that I think that what we believe as children is a good argument for or against theism.
-
Fine then. I guess neither of us have statistics to back us up. We just have personal experience.
-
That may be true of some Christians, but I know a large number who could adequately defend their faith using logic and reason. To be entirely honest, you now are doing what you may accuse and despise so many Christians of doing which is blankly applying a label and stereotype to an entire group which is unfair and insulting.
I'm not exactly sure where I said I "despise" the behaviour of Christians, but okay then. I believe you are the one labeling me.
You said this: "defend their faith using logic". Faith literally means "trusting/believing in God". So in order to defend your faith using logic you would have to prove with logic that God exists. Which is impossible.
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
Not all atheists resort to mockery you know.
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
Indeed. That was my original point in this thread.
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
Not all atheists resort to mockery you know.
I'm sure some won't, but I know from past experience, its a losing proposition to enter into. At least for me anyway. :tick2:
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
Not all atheists resort to mockery you know.
I'm sure some won't, but I know from past experience, its a losing proposition to enter into. At least for me anyway. :tick2:
I'm not an atheist myself, but I feel similarly towards Christianity myself. That being said, I've met a number of really nice people on the internet that call themselves Christians, but nobody like that irl.
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
I could actually see a Christian do that before an atheist would. There are definitely fanatics on both sides but Id guess there are a lot more dumb, blind faith Christians with no idea what they're talking about than dumb, closed-minded atheists. I've found that Christians get more offended that someone can't believe in God so they result in that stle of nonsense arguing.
-
That may be true of some Christians, but I know a large number who could adequately defend their faith using logic and reason. To be entirely honest, you now are doing what you may accuse and despise so many Christians of doing which is blankly applying a label and stereotype to an entire group which is unfair and insulting.
I'm not exactly sure where I said I "despise" the behaviour of Christians, but okay then. I believe you are the one labeling me.
You said this: "defend their faith using logic". Faith literally means "trusting/believing in God". So in order to defend your faith using logic you would have to prove with logic that God exists. Which is impossible.
I find it more common that intelligent Christians have a strengthened confidence in their faith brought on by study of the bible and religious history, not a distinct confidence in their faith simply because it is their faith.
In other words to have an abundance of faith in something does not require a distinct lack of factual evidence to support it.
-
I believe in God and have no interest in debating an Atheist who will just mock anything I would possibly say. Since a belief in God is based on faith and not tangible evidence, you can't and won't win an argument with an Atheist. You will just aggravate and frustrate yourself to the point you wonder why you were stupid enough to engage in such a conversation.
:tick2:
I could actually see a Christian do that before an atheist would. There are definitely fanatics on both sides but Id guess there are a lot more dumb, blind faith Christians with no idea what they're talking about than dumb, closed-minded atheists. I've found that Christians get more offended that someone can't believe in God so they result in that stle of nonsense arguing.
I think it does go both ways. My point was which party of the conversation is the guilty one, my point was, its an argument you won't win. :tick2:
-
From what I can tell so far....the Christian side seeks to prove a few several tenets about Christianity, such as the need for a creator and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and based on these "truths," concludes that since these abnormalities are true, it is no problem that other Christian abnormalities, which cannot be proven, are also true.
The historicity of the resurrection is only necessary for the Atheist. For a Christian it is simply a mystery with no material evidence to support it. It is an article of faith that you either hold or do not hold. You cannot prove the mysteries of the Church, you can simply prove the elements that surround those mysteries that are material and can be proven in order to promote an idea that makes logical sense but must be accepted only through faith.
The Atheist side, on the other hand, focuses on the aspects of Christianity that can be refuted by modern science, and states that since so many things can be refuted, when something historically difficult to refute such as the resurrection comes along, it's no problem to dismiss it.
Again, you can't refute faith based on science but you can based on reason. Faith is a matter of conviction of a belief. For example person A has faith in a flying spaghetti monster. This cannot be refuted using science but it can be refuted as an idea based on surround elements and materials that led us to the idea of a flying spaghetti monster for example, what does it symbolize and what witnesses do we have that can describe this object for us? Again, an atheist cannot base the falsehood of a religion by using science to disprove it. Science cannot prove it to begin with but science also cannot prove anything that isn't material. This is why we have disciplines focused on philosophy. for example, the universality of the human being cannot be proven through science but we can arrive at the universality of the human being through reflection of the individual that I can see and through other individuals that I might be able to categorize and thus come to the idea of universality. this is another reason why I balk at atheists who claim "Science Only" when a lot of things we come to recognize and believe through philosophical ideas have no basis in this "Science only" facet of discipline.
In the end...I think that both sides present strong evidence intermingled with weak evidence...For example, I do feel that the Christian claim that existence of absolute morals demands a God is sort of ill-founded.
What say y'all?
By absolute do they mean natural morality to which we might have a difficult time in describing the terms of such. Although we could define a few absolute morals I don't think the immediate cause of them would point to God. A better argument for the existance of God is universality of the sciences over the particularity of the sciences. Particular sciences calls for a more abstract mechanism to help us understand them. For example I can understand Arthematic through abstraction of numbers. Eventually when you abstract far enough to come to a universality that includes all wisdom from the particular. It's through this universality, called First Principles that you can finally reach the idea of God. This is a far far stronger argument on the existance of God than through the existance of Morals or even absolute morals given that irrational animals do not have morals. Because of this you must go past absolute morals and reach a universality that covers animals and man. For example the intellect.
-
I'll be honest. Your post makes me confused. :| I couldn't follow.
I don't think you can really prove God philosophically, to be honest...I think, as was done in the beginning of the debate, the only proof of God is in the creation itself. Romans 1 defines this issue.
Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later. That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight. But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.
-
I don't think you can really prove God philosophically, to be honest...I think, as was done in the beginning of the debate, the only proof of God is in the creation itself. Romans 1 defines this issue.
Never said it was a proof but that it presents an excellent "idea" of God. ;)
-
Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later. That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight. But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.
Coming from a background rooted in facts and logical thinking I just can't agree with either of those statements. I understand both but I just can't understand how someone can start on faith, get evidence or have the evidence to begin with and decide that ultimately the faith based concepts are truer and more believable. Then again if you have that faith to begin with any evidence that supports it will seem more believable anyways even if they are the most ridiculous illogical concepts.
For example the Grand Canyon was, by scientific geological conclusions, formed over millions (maybe thousands I need to check but I'm really tired) of years of erosion. Still, there are some Christians out there that firmly believe that it was formed due to Noah's flood. They actually believe that it only took 40 days of flood water to completely erode one of the deepest land formations on the North American continent. To me that is belief flying completely in the face of actual facts.
-
Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later. That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight. But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.
Coming from a background rooted in facts and logical thinking I just can't agree with either of those statements. I understand both but I just can't understand how someone can start on faith, get evidence or have the evidence to begin with and decide that ultimately the faith based concepts are truer and more believable. Then again if you have that faith to begin with any evidence that supports it will seem more believable anyways even if they are the most ridiculous illogical concepts.
For example the Grand Canyon was, by scientific geological conclusions, formed over millions (maybe thousands I need to check but I'm really tired) of years of erosion. Still, there are some Christians out there that firmly believe that it was formed due to Noah's flood. They actually believe that it only took 40 days of flood water to completely erode one of the deepest land formations on the North American continent. To me that is belief flying completely in the face of actual facts.
Faith is rooted in that which has no evidence to back it up. Thus in order to have faith in something, you don't have evidence, you have witnesses and you have the Word. Faith first comes from the Word, and is cemented further through witnesses. You can use material evidence to create ideas that are posits of Articles of Faith, but never can faith have evidence to back it up for faith with evidence is not faith. you have faith because the evidence is beyond human reason.
Also those who hold to a literal interpretation of Creationism in my mind is doing more harm to themselves than good. We can certainly posit the idea of a kinda-of "Adam and an Eve" to which the human race get's its roots, but to hold that everything from Genesis must hold as absolute fact is just bad judgment in my eyes. Genesis is a creation myth which describes something that cannot be posited through evidence, it can only be posited through the idea and thus Genesis is a creation myth that helps take that which is beyond human reason and transforms it into signs and symbols which we interpret into the "idea". The Garden of Eden? It's an "idea" that explains the human condition before sin. Does it look exactly like the garden of eden? No. Is the Garden of Eden a metaphor? Yes. Most of the creation myths of our history contains in part a flood story, but for some reason literalist will dismiss scientific fact (dismiss our senses). Again, this is wrong. The flood story again is part of a creation myth and in the flood story we "learn" about God. the flood story itself serves to teach us about the Divine Word and is there for the human mind to understand God. It is not there for us to take 100% literally and believe it as if it were completely true and that God contradicts himself through faith and science. This does not mean that science will disprove God. Again, you cannot disprove that which is beyond the human condition to even prove or disprove at all. The fact we can't prove something doesn't mean it cannot exist. Science follows this frequently.
-
Anyway, I agree that a Christian usually becomes a Christian based on faith, and the evidence comes later. That seems more in line with what God wants, since we walk by faith and not by sight. But there are people where the opposite is true as well, and I suppose that's fine, as long as Christianity is the end result.
Coming from a background rooted in facts and logical thinking I just can't agree with either of those statements. I understand both but I just can't understand how someone can start on faith, get evidence or have the evidence to begin with and decide that ultimately the faith based concepts are truer and more believable. Then again if you have that faith to begin with any evidence that supports it will seem more believable anyways even if they are the most ridiculous illogical concepts.
For example the Grand Canyon was, by scientific geological conclusions, formed over millions (maybe thousands I need to check but I'm really tired) of years of erosion. Still, there are some Christians out there that firmly believe that it was formed due to Noah's flood. They actually believe that it only took 40 days of flood water to completely erode one of the deepest land formations on the North American continent. To me that is belief flying completely in the face of actual facts.
Vivace pretty much covered it. Regarding the Grand Canyon....In fairness, a worldwide flood + rapid division of "Pangea" (a rather ignored "Bible myth") is someting I think could have done (and did) the job.
-
Regarding the Grand Canyon....In fairness, a worldwide flood + rapid division of "Pangea" (a rather ignored "Bible myth") is someting I think could have done (and did) the job.
Really, that's impossible. There is absolutely no way that could be explained with science.
Firstly: a worldwide flood? There's not enough water on the planet to cover all land surface, not even half of it. So where did all the water come from? And even if the amount of water on the planet magically doubled in volume the water would still have to be going at, what, 150000 miles an hour to cause that kind of erosion in such a short amount of time.
Secondly: A rapid division of an entire continent? Do you know how slow tectonic plate movement is? The division of Pangea into seperate continents took from 200 million years ago to 135 million years ago. That's 65 million years. Doesn't sound so rapid to me.
Also, Pangea an ignored bible myth? That's strange, I thought it was a generally accepted idea among scientists worldwide. Please, get your facts straight before you say these things, or just accept that there's no way stuff like this can be scientifically explained. Not to mention other important biblical events like the resurrection of Christ.
-
Whoa dude. Hold up. I think you're blowing up a few of the things I said beyond what I actually meant to say.
Let me deal with both issues.
First of all, the flood. You ask where the water came from, since there's obviously not enough water here, even if you converted all the vapor to liquid. An analysis of the creation story reveals a body of water separate from the body of water which became Earth.
Second of all, the division of Pangea. Let me start by saying that Pangea is indeed a scientific concept, like you said, that exists apart from creationism. The "Bible myth" I'm referring to is the rapid division of Pangea. Yes, I realize that the tectonic plates move very very slowly. But that's if they are left untouched. Do you have an issue with the my belief that God momentarily "sped up" the process, and returned it to it's original rate? Of course, it has the appearance of age, since we can only measure the present rate of tectonic movement and do the math from there.
-
First of all, the flood. You ask where the water came from, since there's obviously not enough water here, even if you converted all the vapor to liquid. An analysis of the creation story reveals a body of water separate from the body of water which became Earth.
Okay. So that body of water was just floating around space and happened to hit the earth's atmosphere without evaporating? If you look at that from a scientific standpoint for a moment, do you really think that's possible? If you think it would, than every scientist in the world would disagree with you.
The "Bible myth" I'm referring to is the rapid division of Pangea. Yes, I realize that the tectonic plates move very very slowly. But that's if they are left untouched. Do you have an issue with the my belief that God momentarily "sped up" the process, and returned it to it's original rate?
I don't have an issue with your beliefs, however, I will say that they are impossible from a scientific point of view. I will try to explain. Tectonic plates drift on magma, which is liquid stone. Where 2 tectonic plates come together there is a so-called subduction zone. Here, one plate slides below the other plate and melts because of the extreme heat, so it becomes magma again. When one plate slides relatively rapidly it's called an earthquake. Still, an earthquake may be just a few inches of movement.
So if you say God could have somehow sped up the process, he would have had to make the magma far, far hotter than it currently is. The current temperature is about 1300-2000 degrees celsius. At this temperature tectonic plates move at about 2 inches a year. Say the division of Pangea took about 10.000 years, which is nothing in earth's total history. Then the magma would have to be some 100000 times hotter than it currently is. There are several major problems with that.
First: At that temperature earth would turn into a star. This temperature would be impossible to maintain for more than 1 millisecond or so, because it would require an enormous amount of energy the earth doesn't have. The earth's core is made up out of metal. An amount of energy this big would require the earth's core to be made up out of quark gluon plasma, like stars. The problem with that is when God were to slow the process down again the star would implode.
Second: Remember, tectonic plates drift on magma. So if the magma were that hot, the plates would just melt entirely.
Third: At that temperature the earth would be many, many times hotter than our sun currently is. So all the other planets in the solar system would have evaporated.
Of course, it has the appearance of age, since we can only measure the present rate of tectonic movement and do the math from there.
Well, the temperature of magma can't drop below 700 degrees celsius because the stone would become solid. The temperature can't go above 3000 degrees celsius because otherwise the stone that makes up the plates would melt entirely and there would just not be enough energy for that to happen.
I'm sorry, but anyone with a scientific background will see that your ideas are just incompatible with the basic principles of nature.
-
Well-informed post.
But you seem to think that I am approaching this from a deist perspective, where God created everything, and just leaves it. I am saying that God is an active intervener in the Earth's processes. He is able to create and contain the energy required to make the processes work.
I understand that by my saying "God could do it" doesn't leave any room for debate, and I never intended to debate these issues. The only reason I brought up the Pangean division was because Orcus said that most Christians describe the formation of the Grand Canyon as a result of the flood, which I believe is inadequate. I simply didn't want the Christian position to be misrepresented.
-
Well-informed post.
Thanks.
But you seem to think that I am approaching this from a deist perspective, where God created everything, and just leaves it. I am saying that God is an active intervener in the Earth's processes. He is able to create and contain the energy required to make the processes work.
Okay. If you believe that God can create and contain energy and change the properties of certain materials when needed then your explanation would certainly be plausible.
I understand that by my saying "God could do it" doesn't leave any room for debate, and I never intended to debate these issues. The only reason I brought up the Pangean division was because Orcus said that most Christians describe the formation of the Grand Canyon as a result of the flood, which I believe is inadequate. I simply didn't want the Christian position to be misrepresented.
Okay. I understand.
-
I was under the impression that most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally.
The numbers in the U.S. are disgusting, but natural history is accepted for the most part outside of the United States (and other religious countries such as Turkey, for example, but I'm mainly considering Western countries).
-
I was under the impression that most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally.
The numbers in the U.S. are disgusting, but natural history is accepted for the most part outside of the United States (and other religious countries such as Turkey, for example, but I'm mainly considering Western countries).
I know that Catholicsm is more widespread than in the States, which is probably why, since they take an allegorical view on Scripture. Using Wikipedia, here's some stats I got:
According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".
-
I was under the impression that most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally.
The numbers in the U.S. are disgusting, but natural history is accepted for the most part outside of the United States (and other religious countries such as Turkey, for example, but I'm mainly considering Western countries).
I know that Catholicsm is more widespread than in the States, which is probably why, since they take an allegorical view on Scripture. Using Wikipedia, here's some stats I got:
According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".
I don't know what you're getting at. The U.S. has a remarkably scientifically illiterate population, as shown by the stats you provided. I mean 45% is just ridiculously awful. If Catholicism was more widespread, as you say, it would be less brutal (maybe), so I don't know what you mean by that sentence. It seems contradictory.
-
I have to agree. 45% seems a bit high.
-
1) The Catholic Church is more influential outside the U.S, hence "most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally."
2) Catholicism is less influential inside the U.S., therefore, numbers of creationists high inside the U.S, as evidenced by the Gallup poll.
Don't see where I'm contradicting myself.
-
1) The Catholic Church is more influential outside the U.S, hence "most Christians (outside of the U.S.) didn't take Genesis literally."
2) Catholicism is less influential inside the U.S., therefore, numbers of creationists high inside the U.S, as evidenced by the Gallup poll.
Don't see where I'm contradicting myself.
ah!
-
Is that an "Oh, I see what he's saying" ah or a "Egads!" ah?
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself. In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself. In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.
Yeah, but if people tax dollars go towards supporting them, then the material taught had best be up to snuff.
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself. In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.
Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself. In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.
Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.
This too. Like if a school taught creationism I can't simply go to a school that doesn't because I don't have a way to do so. So I'd be stuck.
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself. In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.
Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.
This too. Like if a school taught creationism I can't simply go to a school that doesn't because I don't have a way to do so. So I'd be stuck.
Don't know about other school districts/states, but the Brandywine SChool District in Wilmington, Delaware has a 'choice' system in which you can choose which public school to go to
-
In my case, it's an "Egads! I did not see the word "than" in your post!"
But even in countries where Protestantism is as or more prevalent, creationism is not nearly as widespread a belief. It's why American public schools desperately need to keep religious influences out of science classes.
Yeah, I sort of disagree with the public school system myself. In my opinion, schools should be allowed to choose for themselves, so parents can send the kid to the one they feel has a better teaching...but that's a totally separate issue.
Private schools sure. But public schools are based on proximity. People don't choose which public school to go to.
This too. Like if a school taught creationism I can't simply go to a school that doesn't because I don't have a way to do so. So I'd be stuck.
Don't know about other school districts/states, but the Brandywine SChool District in Wilmington, Delaware has a 'choice' system in which you can choose which public school to go to
Well around here you can choose if you want, but the bus won't take you anywhere but the school in your district, so you'll have to get another ride. Growing up as a kid, the bus was the only way to get to school. There was no other way for me to get to school without the bus.
-
I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.
I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid. I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors :rollin
The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument. I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.
I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night. I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible. Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is. Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.
You can't hit the edge of a sphere. Sphere's have no edges.
-
I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.
I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid. I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors :rollin
The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument. I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.
I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night. I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible. Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is. Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.
You can't hit the edge of a sphere. Sphere's have no edges.
Ummm....if you are inside a sphere, and you travel towards the outside of the sphere....wont you eventually reach the edge of the sphere? Seems an appropriate description.
-
He's talking semantics. In the mathematical definition of "edge", spheres have no edges while there still is an actual surface.
I'd argue that it is impossible to reach the edge of the universe because all of space and time is within the universe.
Also, he then says that atheists believe the universe has been here forever. wut
Going with my above statement, I'd agree that the universe has been around "forever".
-
I'm somewhat disappointed the atheist guy brought up Hitler first in his list of different types of Christians.
I also think his whole "Jesus in space" tangent is a bit stupid. I don't remember the verse myself, but I don't think you can take a literal approach to everything in the Bible, especially metaphors :rollin
The Atheist guy does seem to be a little unstructured in his argument. I like how the Christian guy basically has bullet points, but the Atheist guy is sort of all over the map.
I actually have a type of "shell theory" of the universe that I came up with as I was falling asleep last night. I'm not an astrologist by any means, but I want to ask one of my professors if this is possible. Basically...outer space is a sphere, just like the earth is. Once you hit the "edge of the universe," you enter a new "shell," which is, in turn, another sphere.
You can't hit the edge of a sphere. Sphere's have no edges.
Ummm....if you are inside a sphere, and you travel towards the outside of the sphere....wont you eventually reach the edge of the sphere? Seems an appropriate description.
Oh okay I misunderstood what he meant. By sphere I thought he meant more of a planetary sphere because he compared it to earth. It didn't make sense to me. Now I see what he's saying..but still don't understand it, because if when you reach the "edge" of the universe you just go into another universe then that still means there is no end.
-
Actually that is what I meant. And I didn't necessarily mean "the universe." I meant outer space, in general, is a spherical shape. I don't see any evidence for it, nor any evidence against it; it's just my imagination.
-
Actually that is what I meant. And I didn't necessarily mean "the universe." I meant outer space, in general, is a spherical shape. I don't see any evidence for it, nor any evidence against it; it's just my imagination.
So by spherical shape you mean it like we exist on a plane on the circumference (for lack of a better word) of a spherical shape? If so then you truly can't have an edge. Or do you mean we exist INSIDE a spherical shape, and you can burst through the wall of this shape and that is the "edge"
-
The second.