Why can't some Christians explain thier faith with out quoting the bible? (worship, quote)
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.
I didn't say 'All theists'. The idea I had in mind was those theists who come to the stage of choosing between the evidence of science and what they prefer to believe and opt for the latter. Then they very often try to argue that science could be mistaken, which is why I quoted the 'limited human perception' line used by the kind of theists who deny science -just where it conflicts with their faith, mind, they trust it implicitly, otherwise and even hold up science facts (even if they are misunderstood or misrepresented ) as gospel truth, if it seems to support their beliefs.
It is abundantly clear to any any unbiased person with a reasonable grasp of the evidence that such a conclusion is by no means correct. I cannot believe that you haven't seen explanations that the 'physical constants' argument is back to front, and the bicycle formed by an explosion is ignoring the physical process that cause combinations of materials and is not in any way comparable with the action of an explosion or whirlwind or any of the other invalid analogies employed by 'some' science - denying theists.
No, because that is a completely inaccurate analogy of the theories about cosmic origins and abiogenesis. The processes involved are happening today all the time and are known. This is not to say that some kind of 'god' is ruled out. I am not as sure (not to use the term 'biased') as you are. I actually see the evidence as making more sense without a god being involved and am willing to argue it -but on scientific grounds, not religious.
Similarly there are some workable theories of abiogenesis and some evidence. That is not proof, of course, but it means that a creating mind is far from as 'abundantly clear to everyone who has an unbiased mind' as you would like to suppose. In fact I am unbiased enough (not totally )to see the case for a creating mind whereas you not only do not see the counter case but clearly do not want to see it. The bias is clearly shown by your digging up of an award wining scientist who believes the Bible and ignoring the equally celebrated ones that don't.
Considerably less than those who cannot accept a personal theistic creator -particularly the one depicted in the Bible, and moreover cannot believe that the stories in the Bible are true and thus neither are the god - claims. It is vanishingly less than those who look around and do not see a 'personal theistic creator' at work in human affairs. They then may accept that a creative mind is possibly behinds it - I cannot logically rule it out myself - but so what? It simply doesn't matter other than academically, so I and they can afford to be agnostic about it and that means infinitely less than your chance of just not wanting to admit to a 'personal theistic creator'.
I do indeed. In fact I see that an unbiased mind would consider that the evidence is so slender and arguable that belief either way is illogical and so the default unbelief (based on not knowing for sure - it's called 'agnosticism') is not only logically sound but logically mandatory.
In order...
1. Science, by Christians/Theists, is not what we utlimately put our trust in since the very purpose of science is to discover and update on a continual basis. But, science has determined some things to be absolutely true about our cosmos , world, life, etc...and none of these things controvert what the Bible has said all along. Its not that the Bible confirms changeable science, but that the more science investigates the more it lends to the credibility of the Bible and what Theists have said all along.
2. The bicycle analogy is simular to the cosmos because there are materials involved, time, and the same laws of science . Why cant we produce something / anything by gathering up ALL the required materials that make up something relatively non complex like a basketball, and blow up the materials as fast as we can and get a finished product... even in a very confined enclosure ? If we could speed up the process say one billion times, how long would you say it would take to make a fully functioning fully operational basketball ? This is what the atheist is dealing with by supporting naturalism and materialism for origins and given it 4.5 billion years so the sheer impossible can happen.
3. Ive not made the case for God existing from religious persuasion. Only scientific and secular. Ive never asserted God exists because the bible told me so. Ive used a couple of many examples from a scientific emphirical evidential standpoint.
4. The biggest miracle has already taken place which is a fully formed, fully functioning Cosmos that came to exist from nothing in a moment in time when it didnt need to , complete with ALL the required razor edge precise Laws of Physics, C hemistry, plus life enabling constants . Because God exists, miracles are possible and are observable on a daily basis . Ive read the chance of a B aby being b orn healthy is approx. 10^13 th power chance and just because it occurs many thousands of time each day doesnt render it anything hsort of a miracle when you consider what could go wrong. Think what the chances are that the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Life Enabling Constants all working in superior unison to each other to accomplish a very narrow purpose, could 'just happen' apart from a masterful Designer and Sustainer. It is irrational to think 'Nature did it' and given enought time anything can happen.
5. People are agnostics because they have a commitment phobia . Same for atheists. Niether want to connect the simple dots by applying a mustard seed of faith .Its human nature to deny the obvious IF the Person sees some benefit and value in maintaining the status quo even if it isnt the best logical scenario (worldview and origins included) . Humans have the propensity to veto rationality if they so choose. It would be akin to a Person walking up the Mt. Rushmore and looking at the very distinctive faces of the presidents etched in rock, and choosing to believe that natural causes of wind, rain, sun, mudslides, and strategic earthquakes could have been responsible for the sake of it being more philosophically appealing. Thats part of the depravity of humankind which allows him to jettison the very Creator of the cosmos and Creator of his Soul --- there can be no larger mistake made than that .
It is quite possible to defend ones belief in a personal theistic Creator without even saying the word 'Bible' or opening it up. Modern science has provided very compelling evidences for an intelligent Being being the cause of our universe, sustaining it, and making it so fine tuned to provide for human life that it clearly boggles the mind ...at least for the Unbiased Mind.
[comments by rifleman following in blue] So sorry; the Anthropic Principle of a Universe and Planet specifically designed for man is so easily shown to be a conclusion exactly 180˚ out of sync with the evidence as well as with simple but open-minded logic. In fact, we adapted as a organisms over millions of years (visible in the existence of non Croc-O-Duc transitionals. That concept alone reeks of vapid illiteracy and personal bias) to fit the ecosystem and environment as provided by the chance development of this planet. Now surely you would not have us existing here when the earth was an inhospitable and hugely overheated primordial place?
There are essentially three points that prove a personal theistic Creator plus some other considerations too boot :
1. The Creation around us
That's simply not how it came to be, easily demonstrated in light of modern scientific discoveries and dating, thus it's not Proof of any such thing. Only in your highly biased mind.
2. The historical figure of Jesus Christ
Actually, the historical evidence for a godly Jesus figure is entirety conjectural, concocted literally centuries after his supposed existence. The "missing 7 minutes" {see" the liar Richard Nixon for the historical basis of this reference...}, so to speak, of his teen and youth years as additional practical proof that he probably never existed. Prove otherwise please.
3. The proof that the Bible is in fact supernatural in origin and text .
And your point is? "Supernatural" does not prove anything other than no-one can actually prove or document it. You simply WANT to believe in order to clear your fear of No Salvation when you die. ! My mother was an alien, my father was a rock and my children can all fly unaided. Prove me wrong. Oh, but now you back-pedal!
So, the Bible need not be used as proof, although since it is a famous literary work like other popular works...why shouldnt it be used ?
Because it's so contradictory, written by so many illiterate authors who were afraid of their own shadows, who spoke of reading sheep entrails and chicken guts as portends of the future, of lightning as being God hurtling spears of retribution, and of local fludds as being global, and so on. For them, any wild-eyed and fear-inducing explanation that granted them more power of the even more illiterate peons was useful in fiscal and materialistic support of their otherwise minstrel lifestyles.
Perhaps its the people who automatically write it off that need to investigate its authenticity and how it is supernaturally inspired,
I and many other rational and logical scientists have investigated, initially and repeatedly, all of the literal biblical claims until their validity and veracity had been categorically and universally debunked. After all, why re-check yet again that apples don't fall upwards when released, especially after the first several million trials? Only a fervently denialist Christian chooses to say "Well, but yeah... after all... Gravity is only a theory!"
As well, perhaps you might explain to us all why not a single Christian denialist has ever tested any of those research results for themselves. Please answer this point if you dare, since all the necessary methodology, equipment and techniques are always provided in a credible SM publication.
...instead of immediately dismissing it due to a preconcieved personal bias.
Actually, already asked and answered. It's in fact you and your scientifically illiterate ilk who defiantly and stubbornly choose to deny all those trials and tests. No predetermined bias on our side, just on your's; for us, only solid reproducible tests via the unassailable Scientific Method, which you also choose to deny and denigrate. Else, do tell me/us what's specifically wrong with the principles of The SM please. Now would be a good time.
At any rate, one need not use the Bible to justify that there has to be a personal theistic Creator for what we have...and...in fact, it is the most absurd of all things to think that everything 'just happened' nilly willy, that we come from a magical one celled pond protozoa,
Wow! Your total lack of understanding of the principles and processes of natural selection via our adaptible and always mutating DNA genome is staggeringly apparent. You, in fact, are demonstrably a transitional yourself. Easily shown with a simple genome map of you, and your parents and their parents, going back, let's say, just 3 or 4 generations. The micro-changes are readily apparent. No bacterio-hominid-croc-o-duck metaphors please, such as you presented above: "it is the most absurd of all things to think that...we come from a magical one celled pond protozoa" That's just silly-ignorant!
Please tell me/us, I ask politely again, which specific element(s) of Evolution are in fact flawed and un-demonstrable. Please. Technically I mean, since you obviously claim to be educated and capable of critiques of such things.
Or else, please keep your errant personal opinions to yourself. It's quite embarassing to see such abject mis-inofmation appearing in print from a so-called modern fellow hominid! {Actually, I speculate that, intellectually, we're quite differently evolved sub-species... those capable of unbiased critical thinking and those who just follow along, lemming-like,in their non-determinations}You should be ashamed of your total lack of knowledge in an area you then choose to criticize, but apparently instead you're quite proud of your ignorance! Wow!
...and that materials like rocks/dirt/dense clouds/hydrogen gas gave us our NON-material personality traits of reason, logic, love, abstract thinking, and consciousness .
Again, your staggering lack of knowledge of chemistry and particle physics is showing. Put it away please; no-one here wants to see that thing!
But thats about how silly an atheistic worldview is when looking at it.
Fact: none of this is definitive of being an atheist.Atheism, just so you know, is simply a disbelief of any supernatural and completely unprovable God(z). By whatever basis, most often scientific, but also on logical faith and in-depth personal spiritual investigation (as in my case in my early 20's de-conversion from the cult of Christianity; I know both sides and am also highly educated and experienced in the SM, unlike you, obviously. I have both sides of the argument under my belt, unlike you, who speak, as they say, "with forked tongue!") As is so often humorously but truthfully stated, I simply believe in one less God than you do. Why does than make me wrong and you right, pray tell? Again, now would be an appropriate time, but without rancor!
If you want to know how to defend the Christian Faith as being credible, you may go to www.impactapologetics.com or www.answersingenesis.org or do a google under : Evidences for a personal theistic Creator ... assuming there is a real true desire on your part. I trust there is since so much is at stake .
A totally unconvincing website, based, as always, on unsupportable faith-based and wishful tripe. as in: not very convincing unless one has already made their illiterate minds up and are just willing to agree, robot-parrot like, to nod along in tacit and unquestioning agreement. Like a lapdog for God...
1. Science, by Christians/Theists, is not what we utlimately put our trust in since the very purpose of science is to discover and update on a continual basis. But, science has determined some things to be absolutely true about our cosmos , world, life, etc...and none of these things controvert what the Bible has said all along. Its not that the Bible confirms changeable science, but that the more science investigates the more it lends to the credibility of the Bible and what Theists have said all along.
I don't think it does. You may think it does because you see support for a creative mind in science. That is arguable but you overlook that a cosmic mind in not necessarily identical with Biblegod. You cannot prove the Bible stories with First cause arguments or objections to abiogenesis.
Quote:
2. The bicycle analogy is simular to the cosmos because there are materials involved, time, and the same laws of science . Why cant we produce something / anything by gathering up ALL the required materials that make up something relatively non complex like a basketball, and blow up the materials as fast as we can ... even in a very confined enclosure ? If we could speed up the process say one billion times, how long would you say it would take to make a fully functioning fully operational basketball ? This is what the atheist is dealing with by supporting naturalism and materialism for origins .
Similar in that a film of collapsing a building run backwards is 'similar' to a speeded up film of one being built. they are NOT the same process. combinations of atoms, chemical and minerals is NOT the same as blowing them up.
Quote:
3. Ive not made the case for God existing from religious persuasion. Only scientific and secular. Ive never asserted God exists because the bible told me so. Ive used a couple of many examples from a scientific emphirical evidential standpoint. If you see the evidence from a NON personal theistic side, then you have to believe that naturalism and materialism can do the job given enough time ?
I think the evidence for that, and the explanatory mechanisms are better than the arguments for a cosmic mind doing it. I concede that a lot of people doubt that naturalistic materialism is the valid logical default, but Goddunnit really has no mechanism nor evidence and the only case is really doubting that the physical processes could bring it all together, given time.
Quote:
4. The biggest miracle has already taken place which is a fully formed, fully functioning Cosmos that came to exist from nothing in a moment in time complete with ALL the required razor edge precise Laws of Physics, C hemistry, plus life enabling constants . Because God exists, miracles are possible and are observable on a daily basis . Ive read the chance of a B aby being b orn healthy is approx. 10^13 th power chance and just because it occurs many thousands of time each day doesnt render it anything hsort of a miracle when you consider what could go wrong. Think what the chances are that the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Life Enabling Constants all working in superior unison to each other could 'just happen' apart from a masterful Designer and Sustainer. It is irrational to think 'Nature did it' .
I myself find it difficult to believe that it 'all popped out of nothing'. Even Prof. Hawkins' 'something out of nothing requires at least a potential. But there is a big difference between a motivating potential and a fully formed all knowing invisible cosmos - sized mind that never had to be created. I find that even harder to believe.
Quote:
5. People are agnostics because they have a commitment phobia . Same for atheists. Its human nature to deny the obvious IF the Person sees some benefit and value in maintaining the status quo even if it isnt the best logical scenario (worldview and origins included) . Humans have the propensity to veto rationality if they so choose. It would be akin to a Person walking up the Mt. Rushmore and looking at the very distinctive faces of the presidents etched in rock, and choosing to believe that natural causes could have been responsible because it is more philosophically appealing. Thats part of the depravity of humankind which allows him to jettison the very Creator of the cosmos and Creator of his Soul.
You have no business to dish out accusations about agnostics or atheists from a position of ignorance of what their motives and rationales might be.
And I have heard the Mt. Rushmore argument before and it is as false as the bicycle forming out of an explosion analogy is. Now, I think we have spent long enough on your argument for God through the Watchmaker and zones of comfort arguement.
I do have a certain sympathy with the case for First cause, but it is off topic, because it involves science and not the Bible, as you say.
And that gives me an idea. Why don't you open a thread specifically to argue the pros and cons of the First cause/creative mind argument without any reference to the Bible and we can have a good old row?
I continue to be deeply and intellectually appalled by anyone claiming native intelligence and yet presenting that impossible "chance construction" argument. <sigh....>
Specifically: A 747 cannot be ever be created by a chance hurricane landing on a chance location, even an airplane junk yard, and creating by chance, in a few moments lingering over the site, and for one time only, a functioning 747 mostly because the specific and necessary components are not there to begin with, unlike the molecules for literally any imaginable life-supporting, protein-forming DNA chain. As well, there's also absolutely no logical assembly system for an all-new 747 (i.e.: the assy-***-systms and frames and technicians) nor any demonstrable process by which to choose and position the right parts in the right place. What silliness!
This is, of course, both absurdly inept and in no way analogous, no matter how drunk one is, to the systematics that has and is creating the ongoing improvements within our many earthly life forms. That is left to a singular molecular type, DNA &/or RNA, which does, in wildly larger numbers than hurricanes landing on junkyards, and via near-endless quintah-zillions per yearper cubic meter of sea water no less, create uncountable trial and error changes at the basic simple genotype level. And all by a remarkably simple mutation process (and a few others as well...) all now fully observed and documented.
These molecules biochemically and reliably "remember" the newer version and then, following reproduction of a few bah-zillion test prototypes in just a few cubic meters of nice warm primoridal broth, vigorously test it out to see if it invokes any functional improvements, or is neutral or more likely, lethal.
That lethality hardly matters when there's so damned many trials going on, because what if it DOES actually improve the organism's functionality? Even if it's one in a billion bah-zillion versions? If it DOES happen to produce, let's say, better night sight, better sense of detection of suitable prey species, better hearing or tasting systems, better mobility, a better digestive enzyme or perhaps even an entirely new one that allows a species to digest something it previously could not, but is in ample supply thereabouts? (Hence, it likely becomes a new species by definition, btw...), then it's all worth it, and is then passed salong quite reliably and in near-uncountable numbers.
And now sez the multi-celled organism to his mate: "Huzzah; there'll be plenty to eat tonight for a change, huh, Martha!"
So, with but a single minor mutational genetic change, and perhaps a few trillion new & improved individuals with them-thar nifty improved genetics, all reproducin' exponentially in that night's successful reproductive cycle, why, By Gawhly Andy, come sunrise, there's a whole new flood'ah them better-adapted species floating in the primordial soup pool that very next day! No hurricanes nor broken-down 747 precursors required. And Certainly no Gawd neither, rest His non-existant soul...
"Gee dad! Aint' Evil-Loo-Shun beauty-fuhl?" "Yur Dang-Tootin' It Is, Sonny!"
I don't think it does. You may think it does because you see support for a creative mind in science. That is arguable but you overlook that a cosmic mind in not necessarily identical with Biblegod. You cannot prove the Bible stories with First cause arguments or objections to abiogenesis.
Similar in that a film of collapsing a building run backwards is 'similar' to a speeded up film of one being built. they are NOT the same process. combinations of atoms, chemical and minerals is NOT the same as blowing them up.
I think the evidence for that, and the explanatory mechanisms are better than the arguments for a cosmic mind doing it. I concede that a lot of people doubt that naturalistic materialism is the valid logical default, but Goddunnit really has no mechanism nor evidence and the only case is really doubting that the physical processes could bring it all together, given time.
I myself find it difficult to believe that it 'all popped out of nothing'. Even Prof. Hawkins' 'something out of nothing requires at least a potential. But there is a big difference between a motivating potential and a fully formed all knowing invisible cosmos - sized mind that never had to be created. I find that even harder to believe.
You have no business to dish out accusations about agnostics or atheists from a position of ignorance of what their motives and rationales might be.
And I have heard the Mt. Rushmore argument before and it is as false as the bicycle forming out of an explosion analogy is. Now, I think we have spent long enough on your argument for God through the Watchmaker and zones of comfort arguement.
I do have a certain sympathy with the case for First cause, but it is off topic, because it involves science and not the Bible, as you say.
And that gives me an idea. Why don't you open a thread specifically to argue the pros and cons of the First cause/creative mind argument without any reference to the Bible and we can have a good old row?
I think we can draw this dialogue to a close now ; there is abundant physical evidence for any casual Observer to see that what we have by way of incredible complexity and obvious design/engineering that it takes a Designer - Engineer as the Cause....a highly personal , incredibly intelligent, supernatural abilities....infinite BEING with a Will . The only other alternative to this is the lunacy of Natural Causes and Random Materials assembling our razor edge precise Physics Constants and specific Life Enabling Constants for our sole benefit . It is not an 'biased Mind' that anyone draws this simple conclusion because if Naturalism and Materialism could produce such, then i would jettison a personal Creator ... but (non intelligent, non personal, non logical) Naturalism and Materialism simply cannot .
A cursory examination of Creation shows that and it is only the pride and arrogance of Man that prevents him from going deeper in the investigation because it runs counter to his philosophical bias, particularly : Personal Lifestyle choices and not wanting to be owned which is the case since a creation demands a Creator . And making up excusal speculations and opinion to jettison the Creator whos made himself known from his abilities, is THE greatest heinous crime anyone could choose to commit. The ramifications are of eternal consequence and indeed such a Person has lost everything due to willful refusal to submit himself rightfully to the awesome Creator of the Cosmos and us all. Surrendering authority of ones life over to the Almighty is seen as a weakness, but in actuality, it is the wisest thing going. To quote a popular recent Movie :' What we do on Earth echos for eternity' .. and indeed this is mankinds plight....a granting of Ones deepest desire. End. (Thanks for the exchange and see you in a different thread)
Greater than 60% of the population believe in a god, this fits nicely together. Or don't you understand status quo?
No, 100% of the populace believes in God, but only a percentage of that are willing to admit it and a still smaller percentage is willing FOLLOW and return Gods demonstrable love for us. Yes...it does fit nicely for hope beyond the grave culminating in God granting what we truly desired while on earth : Either greater closeness to him forever, or, greater distance from him forever --- as we willed. End.
No, 100% of the populace believes in God, but only a percentage of that are willing to admit it and a still smaller percentage is willing FOLLOW and return Gods demonstrable love for us. Yes...it does fit nicely for hope beyond the grave culminating in God granting what we truly desired while on earth : Either greater closeness to him forever, or, greater distance from him forever --- as we willed. End.
This is, in addition to being incredibly insulting and condescending, a flat out lie. In fact it borders on apostacy, since only God is supposed to know a man's heart, and here you are claiming that knowledge for everyone in the world, for all time.
Let me set you straight, I do not believe in a god, any god. It is just that simple. Do me the courtesy of not calling me a liar while yourself lying about me simply to make your doctrinal worldview consistent. No matter what covenant you are under, bearing false witness is a sin.
I think we can draw this dialogue to a close now ; there is abundant physical evidence for any casual Observer to see that what we have by way of incredible complexity and obvious design/engineering that it takes a Designer - Engineer as the Cause....a highly personal , incredibly intelligent, supernatural abilities....infinite BEING with a Will . The only other alternative to this is the lunacy of Natural Causes and Random Materials assembling our razor edge precise Physics Constants and specific Life Enabling Constants for our sole benefit . It is not an 'biased Mind' that anyone draws this simple conclusion because if Naturalism and Materialism could produce such, then i would jettison a personal Creator ... but (non intelligent, non personal, non logical) Naturalism and Materialism simply cannot .
A cursory examination of Creation shows that and it is only the pride and arrogance of Man that prevents him from going deeper in the investigation because it runs counter to his philosophical bias, particularly : Personal Lifestyle choices and not wanting to be owned which is the case since a creation demands a Creator . And making up excusal speculations and opinion to jettison the Creator whos made himself known from his abilities, is THE greatest heinous crime anyone could choose to commit. The ramifications are of eternal consequence and indeed such a Person has lost everything due to willful refusal to submit himself rightfully to the awesome Creator of the Cosmos and us all. Surrendering authority of ones life over to the Almighty is seen as a weakness, but in actuality, it is the wisest thing going. To quote a popular recent Movie :' What we do on Earth echos for eternity' .. and indeed this is mankinds plight....a granting of Ones deepest desire. End. (Thanks for the exchange and see you in a different thread)
Well, I see that your only response to the counter - points I made is to simply restate the points again. Together with a restatement of accusations about "the pride and arrogance of Man that prevents him from going deeper in the investigation because it runs counter to his philosophical bias,"
Are YOU going to go deeper into the investigation or do I take it that you would prefer not to have to do too much ignoring of counter -points and just restating the same refuted viewpoints yet again?
No, 100% of the populace believes in God, but only a percentage of that are willing to admit it and a still smaller percentage is willing FOLLOW and return Gods demonstrable love for us. Yes...it does fit nicely for hope beyond the grave culminating in God granting what we truly desired while on earth : Either greater closeness to him forever, or, greater distance from him forever --- as we willed. End.
Absolute balderdash. It would simply destroy you if you were to consider that this is all there is, you absolutely need the crutch that is your much hoped for eternity as a robot repeating ad nausium praise the lord. The really funny thing is that some people regard this as paradise.
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.
) as gospel truth, if it seems to support their beliefs. 
)to see the case for a creating mind whereas you not only do not see the counter case but clearly do not want to see it. The bias is clearly shown by your digging up of an award wining scientist who believes the Bible and ignoring the equally celebrated ones that don't.
