Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this were a logical argument then why not use it for the truth of Islam. You could ask why people would blow themselves up if Islam isn't true. The fact that people will get killed for something doesn't make those beliefs true.
In my ever-present quest to figure out which is more logical - Christianity or something else such as deism - I have stumbled across a line which I can't immediately refute to a degree I consider sufficient.
This one pastor told me that he can find more inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible than even the most militant atheist. Maybe that's true. However, his logic for being Christian is as follows:
It makes no sense that people would have created a religion that would put them at odds with the most powerful government of the time (Rome) had they not truly seen what they claimed to have seen. They would not have died for these beliefs, as almost all of the original Christians did, had they not truly seen the risen Christ and witnessed His miracles.
Now, I say that there have been examples of religious fanatics going against the government - heck, the Branch Davidians went against the most powerful government of the time in 1992 and most (if not all) of them died for their beliefs... so it's not like Christianity is the only religion that ever experienced that phenomenon... but I still think that this is weak reasoning and I'd like to see what other people have to say about it. Let's rock.
This is a remarkably silly argument, even in the very stiff competition for silly arguments that makes up the field of proofs for the existence of god.
First off, it is far from the case that most, or even a substantial number of the early Christian martyrs had had personal contact with the alleged Jesus and his alleged resurrection. They heard of it the same way that all of us today heard of it: by word of mouth from someone claiming to know something about it. I also doubt that it's true that almost all the original Christians were killed for their beliefs.
We can set that aside for the moment, though, and just point out that this minister's argument is basically a case of the fallacy of appeal to popularity. We have observed that it's no challenge to get one person or a million people to believe in something false. The number of people who will assent to a proposition has literally nothing to do with whether that proposition is true.
This is an interesting discussion, but I have to refer back to the point of the OP. The Truth of Christianity.
Even if we conceded that the Big bang was impossible because all the matter of the known universe could not be contained in a single stable event (1) and that there had to be an intelligent creative mind, how does that prove Christianity?
It doesn't. But that wasn't my premise in the original post. The thread got off track when I was asked to prove that there was a Creator. I don't mind doing that to attest to why I couldn't ever be an atheist, but that wasn't the original question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
Why would gravity need to predate the universe? Gravity is just how matter interacts with other matter - no matter, no gravity.
There are exceptions - such as black holes. However, I'm fine with assuming this. It really changes nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
The logic is faulty with both positions otherwise - whether you wish to argue a creator or an explosion, it is illogical to have a "first cause uncaused". If you are willing to make such an exception to causality for a first cause, why not for any unexplainable cause?
The "first cause" would naturally be unexplainable. However, I don't think it's illogical to have a "first cause uncaused" - merely incomprehensible. Nobody has come up with any logical explanation for how an infinite regression of causality is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
But obviously no degree in logic.
Others have used more words to refute what you declare than this but all you have presented is the mundane 'god of the gaps' explanation.
Oh come now, thou knowest not that I have an autism condition which fixates my mind on logical thinking more than most people. I'm naturally talented at logic, as it were.
And I'm not presenting any particular god as the creator. If I'm being illogical by suggesting that there is one, I can state for the record that there's never been a good argument posited for how the universe started sans a creator. I may claim "god of the gaps" to an extent, but atheists claim "I don't know how the universe came into being but it sure wasn't created"... I can't refute that claim as intelligently as I would like, but I can say that I don't find it to have any advantage over my claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Except that at extremes of scale, pressure, etc., matter behaves differently. I (and, I suspect you) lack the mathematical and physics knowledge to substantiate such a claim to the satisfaction of a scientist, but if you've borrowed this objection from an actual physicist, please do cite that worthy so that we might investigate their claims further.
I don't. But there's no way to know whether or not the matter was subject to such extremes at the inception of the universe - therefore it could only ever be a hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
You make the usual error of assuming that time and space always operate exactly as they are known to now. That this universe is not cyclically expanding and contracting, etc. The truth is that we (including you) do not know exactly and therefore the appropriate response is to admit, and attempt to remedy, that ignorance ... which science is currently doing, to the extent possible.
I don't think that time and space always operate exactly as they are known to, now. However, you must admit, at least, that all of these scientific constructs we call "laws" would not be so if they weren't universally applicable across time and space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Not at all. We understand the emergence of order from chaos,
I'd love to see one example of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
Is this the "I don't know what caused it, therefore, it must have been god" argument?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
This is a remarkably silly argument, even in the very stiff competition for silly arguments that makes up the field of proofs for the existence of god.
First off, it is far from the case that most, or even a substantial number of the early Christian martyrs had had personal contact with the alleged Jesus and his alleged resurrection. They heard of it the same way that all of us today heard of it: by word of mouth from someone claiming to know something about it. I also doubt that it's true that almost all the original Christians were killed for their beliefs.
We can set that aside for the moment, though, and just point out that this minister's argument is basically a case of the fallacy of appeal to popularity. We have observed that it's no challenge to get one person or a million people to believe in something false. The number of people who will assent to a proposition has literally nothing to do with whether that proposition is true.
This is indeed true. Over the years, many people have believed in falsehoods. Heck, America's sorry state these days proves how masses of people frequently believe in falsehoods. I should do more research into exactly how many people did die for Christianity, back in its early days.
It doesn't. But that wasn't my premise in the original post. The thread got off track when I was asked to prove that there was a Creator. I don't mind doing that to attest to why I couldn't ever be an atheist, but that wasn't the original question.
...
Yes, we have got off topic, but you rather contributed to this
Quote:
:
Originally Posted by hiker45 What a silly quest. Trying to use logic to determine your religious beliefs. Logic has nothing to do with it.
Go outside and look at the beautiful world around you. Do you see any evidence that makes you think there are gods?
Quote:
RomaniGypsy Scientifically I can prove that there was a Creator. (Bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics here.) There is no way that a "Big Bang" could have happened, sans someone to "push the button", and still satisfy the laws of physics. Even Stephen Hawking's explanation is dubious - "given a law such as gravity, the universe would have to create itself"... maybe, but how did the law of gravity come into being? There had to have been a "first cause". Does that tell me anything about "God"'s nature, or even whether or not "God" is still alive? No. But it does attest to, for lack of a better term, intelligent design.
Hiker's post was a cue for you to attack the Big bang, and use mathematics and physics to prove there must be a creator. I think we have got to the point where we see that this is a pointless argument.
You cannot prove there is a creator and we cannot prove that there isn't one. But the reasons to think there must be one (Gap for God) are diminishing.
One argument against a creator is the world around us, as Hyker's post said. "Do you see any evidence that makes you think there are gods?"
The answer will of course be 'Yes' because of intelligent design and incredulity about abiogenesis even if evolution -theory is not denied. The arguments against the validity of ID are more useful than the Creator debate because we have a better knowledge of all the facts.
And there is also the question of evidence of a god intervening in our lives. The arguments for God answering prayers (or not) healing people (or not) and saving people (or not) is not in itself a very good argument for a god or gods interactive in our lives.
Though OOB's and NDE's are a handy source of Afterlife-soul-God-claim 'evidence' because here again we don't really know what is causing this and so it is a handy gap for God.
So I'm willing to discuss any of that as incidental to a claim for a god of some sort, but it isn't really proving Christianity. To do that, you need to make a good case for the Gospel story being reliably true. And also, incidentally, that it validates Christianity and its beliefs as they are today.
That, I think, returns to topic, while not completely losing sight of the related 'creator' argument.
You first. Off you go.
P.s and I do want to avoid anything that even looks like subject -changing.
Example of order from chaos. a crystal growing in a mess of chemicals.
Of course 'chaos' is merely relative. It means that more order emerges out of the order of physical processes that was there (and is there) even in the apparent chaos that is all round us. The universe is chaotic, but stars emerge from it,. But the matter of the universe is not actually chaotic; it obeys physical laws. I really think that is all that this denial of order from chaos argument deserves.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-06-2014 at 02:43 AM..
. I may claim "god of the gaps" to an extent, but atheists claim "I don't know how the universe came into being but it sure wasn't created"... I can't refute that claim as intelligently as I would like, but I can say that I don't find it to have any advantage over my claim.
.
There is no 'to an extent'. You're either filling in the gaps or you aren't.
More accurately, the atheist claim is "I don't know how the universe came into being but I've seen no evidence to suggest it was created."
Correct, and the post you responded to said, of the rather misrepresented atheist claim 'It sure wasn't created' (Nobody knows for sure, but we don't see a persuasive case for creation) "I don't find it to have any advantage over my claim." Which leaves us having to agree to differ on the Creator claim.
Ok, I guess we are both happy to differ with a believer in a creator, but that sure doesn't prove creation or a creator. Nor does it disprove it. It really is a futile argument and of doubtful relevance to proving Christianity true or valid.
It doesn't. But that wasn't my premise in the original post. The thread got off track when I was asked to prove that there was a Creator. I don't mind doing that to attest to why I couldn't ever be an atheist, but that wasn't the original question.
.
Actually,, it got off track when you said this.
" Scientifically I can prove that there was a Creator. (Bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics here.)"
That's much more interesting than talking about whether or not a bunch of loonies might die for their beliefs.
Maybe I missed it but I still haven't seen this 'scientific proof'.
I don't think that time and space always operate exactly as they are known to, now. However, you must admit, at least, that all of these scientific constructs we call "laws" would not be so if they weren't universally applicable across time and space.
I need not admit any such thing. To be useful, observed behaviors must be sufficiently predictive for the purposes at hand, not universally predictive. Newtonian physics, for instance, are adequate to this day for most mundane purposes, even though embellished and in certain extreme environments superceded by quantum mechanics. We cannot absolutely know that any "law" is "universal", in all places at present, much less in the past or future. That doesn't invalidate their great predictive power and utility, but neither does it elevate them to absolute objective truth in all cases, either.
Aside from not knowing that all laws always apply exactly the same everywhere and everywhen, we may not fully understand the operation of a law at all scales and energy levels and circumstances and may have to elaborate it in the face of new evidence or exceptions (real or apparent) that arise from time to time.
So in fact if, as you say, you don't think time and space always operate the same it actually underscores that natural "laws" do not apply universally across time and space.
Isn't it strange how those who argue for a Creator will insist (when it suits them) on universal applicability of the laws of physics even though we can't say for sure and there is reason to doubt it, while others will deny (when it suits them) that physical laws such as isotope decay are constant rate and will insist (without any real evidence) that it varied wildly for some unclear reason even when there is pretty conclusive evidence (fossil radiation events) that it didn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
