I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[nomadic]

Modern Nomad:

hey is that what the "Creationists" say when you ridicule them? but the thing is, im not ridiculing you.

interesting? isn't it? life is a circle in more ways than one.

Actually, I think I should be commended for my ability to predict the future. ^_^

Its not easy being me. ya know.

 

[Didums]

actually, i am being perfectly rational in the scientific process here.

there are no losses. only exposure of weaknesses.

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

-----------------------------------------------------

Niburu and Sumerian hypotheses aren't theories because they haven't been validated by the above process.

 

[Carebear]

please answer a better reason why Sumerians knew more about modern day astrology than NASA did.

Occam's Razor.

Ok. Occam's Razor.
All other things being equal, which of the following two explanations introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities?

a) Zecharia Sitchin's interpretations of the Sumerian texts are inaccurate.
b) The ancient Sumerians knew more about modern day astrology than NASA did and created star charts because they were visited by extraterrestrials who needed them for space travel.

 

[Carebear]

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Well...

 

[nomadic]

Ok. Occam's Razor.
All other things being equal, which of the following two explanations introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities?

a) Zecharia Sitchin's interpretations of the Sumerian texts are inaccurate.
b) The ancient Sumerians knew more about modern day astrology than NASA did and created star charts because they were visited by extraterrestrials who needed them for space travel.

a) is a possibility. Sumerian is an altaic-ural language, so altaic/ural language experts would be best equipped to translate their texts. I am not sure if Sitchin used Altaic/Ural translators.

b) sounds ridiculous, but Zecharia is not the only interpretor of Sumerian cosmology. But in general, it does seem like it is generally an agreed upon interpretation.

 

[nomadic]

Well...

ah... haha so u know too what REAL academis is like.

 

[Carebear]

a) is a possibility. Sumerian is an altaic language, so altaic language experts would be best equipped to translate their texts. I am not sure if Sitchin used Altaic translators.

b) sounds ridiculous, but Zecharia is not the only interpretor of Sumerian cosmology. But in general, it does seem like it is generally an agreed upon interpretation.

From Wikipedia:
"Part of his theory lies in an astronomical interpretation of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, in which he replaces the names of gods with hypothetical planets. However, since the principal evidence for Sitchin's claims lies in his own personally derived etymologies and not on any scholarly agreed interpretations (including scholars among the Sumerians themselves), his theories remain at most pseudoscience to the vast majority, if not the totality, of academics."

It's not an agreed upon translation. And even if it was, there's still a leap from saying the Sumerians studied the sky to saying that must mean they had contact with aliens.

I'm not saying there's doesn't exist a possibility Zecharia got it 100% correct, but you've been waving Occam's Razor in this thread, and unless there is something that a) doesn't cover which b) does, Occam's Razor favours a).

 

[Carebear]

ah... haha so u know too what REAL academis is like.

Absolutely! Which is why I'm a skeptic when it comes to science. And an even bigger skeptic when it comes to pseudoscience, which doesn't even pretend to try to be falsifiable.

 

[nomadic]

From Wikipedia:
"Part of his theory lies in an astronomical interpretation of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, in which he replaces the names of gods with hypothetical planets. However, since the principal evidence for Sitchin's claims lies in his own personally derived etymologies and not on any scholarly agreed interpretations (including scholars among the Sumerians themselves), his theories remain at most pseudoscience to the vast majority, if not the totality, of academics."

It's not an agreed upon translation. And even if it was, there's still a leap from saying the Sumerians studied the sky to saying that must mean they had contact with aliens.

I'm not saying there's doesn't exist a possibility Zecharia got it 100% correct, but you've been waving Occam's Razor in this thread, and unless there is something that a) doesn't cover which b) does, Occam's Razor favours a).

Yes. Which is why there are a bunch of Korean linguists being recruited to study the Sumerian texts at the University of Chicago, currently.

 

[Owl]

I reject religion because of The Big Picture. The Big Picture, to me, is starting chronologically at the beginning of the Universe and working your way to this point in time, scientifically of course. (If there are any errors in the science please forgive me lol)

Singularity --> Big Bang due to high vaccum pressure --> Stars and Galaxies form over billions of years --> About 9 billion years into the Universe the Sun of our Solar System forms --> Very shortly after, the Earth forms (.05 billion years after) --> the bombardment of earth by asteroids, meteors, etc --> 0.14 to 1.84 billion years into Earth's existence, Abiogenesis brings primitive cells into existence (on its own, no help from God needed) --> For a few billion years these primitive cells become more complex and compete for survival --> transitional forms of cells arise, the transition being single-celled to multi-celled (no help from God needed) --> Multi-celled organisms arise and begin to spread and evolve --> Precambrian --> (okay this is taking a while and I think i'm making my point, i'll skip a bit) --> Homo Sapiens become a distict species in the Homo Genus (we arrived this way on our own, no help from God), also a few subspecies of Homo Sapiens come about but go extinct (they came after us but died out) --> Homo Sapiens spread from Africa to the rest of the world --> We adapt differently to the environments of the world (had our species been isolated we would have branched off from each other, Asians, Caucasians, etc) --> Each culture has its own religious explanation for our origins --> (blah blah the idea is made)

Why, after all of this, does God decide, "hey, those homo sapiens over there are sinful and need to be moral according to my rules"? Why does God put himself in human form in some remote desert part of Earth to die for our sins that weren't committed (Adam and Eve never existed and never 'sinned' against God)? Why after all this time, with all these organisms over billions of years, does God decide that its about time for him to show himself? Why didn't he show himself to the other Highly-Conscious beings that existed in the Homo Genus? What about people that never hear the word of Jesus, are they forgiven for their imaginary sin, you would think that if he was a decent and intelligent God he would show himself to everyone at once to prove his existence? What happens to other organisms in general, when they die do they just cease to exist, saved from hell but exempt from heaven?

Why does God make a heaven and hell for us when the place that we go to is predetermined? God is Omnipotent, All-knowing, and Outside of Time itself, he would already know where we would go to by definition, we have no choice, people like me are doomed to eternal hellfire, do you understand? If we had a choice in what to believe, then the God wouldn't be God, because he wouldn't Know our every thought and what we would decide so that would make him Not All-knowing, A God that doesn't know everything isn't God. If God exists outside of Time, then our existence means nothing to him, the entire history of the Universe could be over in the snap of the finger to God, its like he would have a Tivo remote, he could rewind, pause, fast forward, skip to the end, everything predetermined by the show he was watching that he created, the Universe could exist for .00001 of a second to him, why would he care for a species that arose on earth for a fraction of existence in the history of the Universe. All of that makes no sense though, because the concept of Time is being applied to God! A God outside of Time cannot exist in this way, it is literally un-thinkable, our brains are wired to understand the concept of time, where there is no time it is non-existence to us, our consciousness makes up time, if the atoms in my body were scattered somewhere else in the Universe they would be indifferent to time's existence, they would interact with time but time wouldn't Mean anything to them. If God existed in his own sense of Time outside our Universe (whatever "outside our universe" may mean..) wouldn't he have to be physically comprised of something to exist? If God was Physically comprised of something, in a sense of time, would he be Outside our Universe? Wouldn't those things be applied to Our Universe?

I have yet to have any theist give me a plausible account for the existence of God. I have no reason to believe in God via personal experience. I have no reason to believe in God via the logic that is instilled in my consiousness, if I had a different thought process (different sense of logic) then maybe I would.

Edit: This is pretty much addressing Christianity exclusively.

Most of the content of the OP attempts to interpret Christian doctrine in view of the assumptions of a physicalist worldview. It's not surprising that this endeavor met with some snags. These snags are then used as evidence to support the author's initial declaration. If I may take some interpretive liberty, I'll rephrase the argument: "Given that the scientific worldview makes contradictory claims to those made by the theistic worldview, and I'm aware of a large body of evidence that supports the scientific worldview, whereas there seems to be a dirth of evidence supporting the theistic worldview, I therefore reject the theistic worldview."

If I interpreted you (Didums) rightly, then what you said is fair. Indeed, if I thought you were in the habit of believing foundational propositions without evidence, then I'd be more concerned about your mental well-being than if you professed to be a Christian who believed without evidence despite being aware of good, contrary evidence.

Furthermore, you rightly imply that a just God would not punish persons with hell for their lack of faith if it weren't clear he existed: justice demands that maximal punishment require maximal clarity. You didn't dedicate much of the OP to this point, but it gives the argument above more bite; in view of plausible alternative worldviews, would it be fair of God to punish you with everlasting suffering for not believing in him? (If God should to do this, then I'd hope he chokes to death on a burrito that's so hot he couldn't eat it.)

In the OP, you also challenge the coherence of predestination and moral responsibility. Your argument here seems to go thusly: the ability to do otherwise is necessary for 'choice'/moral responsibility, but if God predetermines everything, then it's impossible for anyone to choose to do otherwise--and thus be morally responsible for what he did; therefore, either God or 'choice'/moral responsibility doesn't exist.

However, it's possible for 'choice' and moral responsibility to be compatible with determinism; indeed, moral responsibility requires that our actions be determined; for if you don't determine your action, then it's not your action; and if it's not your action, then you're not morally responsible for it. Furthermore, just because you don't have the ability to do otherwise doesn't mean you don't make choices; you choose to do what you want to do, and you are always free to make choices based on what you want. Of course, God, being omniscient, knows what you want; thus, he knows what you will choose to believe.

Now, in the OP, you didn't say you wanted a theist to give a plausible account for the existence of God, only that you'd don't know of any that's given one, but, should you want to seek out whether any such account exists, then I'd be willing to help find if there is such an account.

 

[Didums]

Owl,

Awesome summary of my strangely structured 'rant'!

The only question I have is regarding your 5th paragraph. What was the purpose in mentioning Determinism? I'm just a bit confused about that.. sorry if its a dumb question, its late at night and my brain is a bit sore lol.

Also, about your offer of seeking out a plausible account for the existence of God, I don't think its necessary. I don't completely deny the possibility of a God figure existing (except in the fashion that I argue against in my OP), it just likely hasn't shown itself to us (and never will). Also, it would probably be different to the human definition of a God, therefore, not truly a God at all, however, the same Supernatural idea is in mind. So, a Supernatural entity may exist, it is likely not be limited to the human definition of God (which is by nature a made up thing), it has likely not shown itself to us in any of the world religions, and it is likely indifferent to our existence. It would truly be of no importance to us at all.

 

[Owl]

Owl,

Awesome summary of my strangely structured 'rant'!

The only question I have is regarding your 5th paragraph. What was the purpose in mentioning Determinism? I'm just a bit confused about that.. sorry if its a dumb question, its late at night and my brain is a bit sore lol.

It's not a dumb question. I could have as easily swapped the word "determinism" with "predestination," and, after having re-read my post, I think this word swap may have been less confusing. Predestination is a form of determinism, and so the same questions that arise when discussing any form of determinism also arise when discussing predestination. One of the most common questions that arises when discussing any form of determinism is whether it's compatible with moral responsibility, and much of the discussion surrounding this question revolves around the concept of choice and whether choice can exist in a deterministic world; hence, I used the word "determinism" because the challenge you raised is more basic than the specific challenges it raises for Christian predestination--its conceptual implications are broader than the specifics of how that challenge works itself out in a merely theistic, or Christian worldview.

Also, about your offer of seeking out a plausible account for the existence of God, I don't think its necessary. I don't completely deny the possibility of a God figure existing (except in the fashion that I argue against in my OP), it just likely hasn't shown itself to us (and never will). Also, it would probably be different to the human definition of a God, therefore, not truly a God at all, however, the same Supernatural idea is in mind. So, a Supernatural entity may exist, it is likely not be limited to the human definition of God (which is by nature a made up thing), it has likely not shown itself to us in any of the world religions, and it is likely indifferent to our existence. It would truly be of no importance to us at all.

OK. I will note, however, that even if it were the case that there was an indifferent God, knowledge of this fact would still be valuable, for then you would know that any religion that claimed God wasn't indifferent was wrong, and it is conceivable that you could find a way to benefit from this knowledge. There is nothing more valuable than knowledge; it enables us to know what is good and the means to it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Thanks for your response, it was more thorough than I expected. Hope you got a good rest.

Nuclear weapons are one of the most obvious parts in this story. Secound the most obvious part are serious and dangerous diseases , because their only purpose is to kill the person and make many people unhappy that were close to that person.

I do need to point out that it is already clear that you are operating backwards -- i.e., you're starting with ideals of your own that have yet been unargued, then drawing your conclusions from them.

1. A good god would not allow nuclear weapons.
2. A good god would not allow serious/Dangerous diseases.
3. If God exists, he is not a good God.

A forward (not backward) assess would say:
1. The potential for nuclear weapons exist.
2. Serious/Dangerous diseases exist.
3. What is the full range of possibilities in regards to God for such things existing? [What purposes would #1 and #2 serve? Are they residual of good things or wholly evil? And so on.]

These are actually two very different approaches. The first one includes an inherent ideal/non-ideal (or even good/evil) moral judgment.

Someone could say that it is only the gods call after him to come on the trial of his existance. But that would mean that god desides when is it enough and the person has no time to redeem oneself in this life or prove that he is good.

So God is not loving (i.e., evil, I think, in how you're discussing this) because if he was, he would give people more time to redeem themselves but sometimes calls the game early.

Possible punishment for doing bad things does not fit the crime at all.
Specialy if you add the fact that personality is created more of less in the first few years when the person is completly dependent on the others.
Someone could go even further and bring genetics into the picture. If you want I could even add determinism in this but that would take too long and I think that many people here know what determinism is.

It's inevitable that they would.

So you're saying that behavior springs from inborn forces that God is conjectured to place there anyway, which means he's punishing people for them partly behaving as he created them to behave. (JUst asking for clarification.)

I think that determinism is one of the best arguments against religion.

Determinism to me partly removes the NEED for religion. i.e., if the machine runs all by itself and outcome is predetermined based on the earlier state of the system, then moral values seem to have no place.

Although it still does not explain why the system exists in the first place.

Also if determinism is driving force in this reality (and I don't see reason why it would not be) would mean that real love never existed becuse then everything is one big chain reaction that was started by god.

I think our concept of love is based on choice, yes.

Love is a choice to do what is best for someone else or to accept/trust them into a relationship, when there is no compulsion or need to do so. If you have no choice, you can't really choose to love.

If god really loves us so much why is he/she/it playing so many games with us. Why does not he/she/it just show itself and end all this storys that are going around and that are creating many serious emotional problems to people all around the world.

Surely you have read one of the zillions of fantasy novels out there where the characters spent their lives unsure of what was going on, but afterwards discovered that if they had been told the truth up front, they would not have persevered to the end and benefited from things.

Even apply it to psychology. People don't change and grow unless they have to. If they knew what was going on, they might not change. Change is very desirable as part of life.

Now applying this very broad concept to religion. You can see lots of reasons why a loving God might not just spill the beans up front. I can't say which is true; I'm simply saying there are scenarios that make the "not knowing" reasonably understandable.

And creating large amout of fear ,doubt and moments of despair. If you do that to one person you are awfull person but if you do that to billions of people you are antichrist behind any doubt. Becuse god is almighy I don't see what could be his/her excuse for doing this.

God creates fear, doubt, and despair? Those are feeling states -- possibilities inherent in the human system (i.e., biology). We choose whether or not to give into them and indulge them, and even act on them. Just because they exist really says nothing about God; it matters only what the overall intent of having such a system was in the first place, and if that system enables us to reach pinnacles of growth, then now it is a person's choice that determines the value of having the potential for despair -- not any sort of "God." God would have just created the machinery, but not how it was used.

This is the worst possible way of manipulating peoples feelings you can imagine.That is because it looks like the only goal is that someone should feel bad. From what I know about you Jennifer I think that you can relate to this part of the post.

...sorry, but not really.

I identified with the earlier things more.

I do wrestle with the thought of "Why so much pain in the world?"

But I live within the system. I can't evaluate it from the outside. From a personal standpoint, I can despise the pain and be angry at a God figure. From an impersonal standpoint, trying to use my mind and imagination, I can visualize why that sort of experience might be necessary in order to spur growth.

A book I was recently reading talked about overcoming childhood pains, especially with disappointment in the parents, and the author made the point that usually people who have undergone those terribly emotionally painful childhoods are also highly sensitive, empathic, broad/far-seeing... and have a sense and longing for beauty, goodness, and joy that others who had better childhoods do not. They can find beauty in everything.

So he advises to accept the experiences for what they were, true, but also to not hold bitterness over them and to see them in some ways as a gift that brought "goodness" and the desire for it into clearer focus.

Just another idea for you to consider.

One more example could be that in this world homosexuality should have different status. Is it fair to create humanity with homosexuality and then accuse that individuals for many bad things in this world and then presecute them as sinners? Sorry, but this sounds like one really bad joke.

Oh, there's lots of bad, B-rate movies out there.

If you want a personal opinion, that's why I think the conservative religious stance on homosexuality (and similar things) is crap. Especially if you look at what gets said by Jesus. But that's another issue.

If you say that Satan corrupted them, then why does not the almighty simply breake the curse. Why creating Satan at all?

Does Satan actually exist in the way you bring him up, or is that just partly another part of the "Paradise Lost" myth read back into modern Christianity? I don't know.

Why would you create world that can be polluted by people who just want to be happy or the world that can support much larger amount of people.

With limited resources, any world fills up and/or gets polluted. Everything is fighting for the same living space, with different needs.

Why main energy source must be huge termonuclear reactor that can even kill you I you are not carefull. I am talking about the Sun here.

What other energy source options are palatable to you? Do they have no flaws in them either?

If love is so important why did it take billions of years to create it.
We are talking about almighty here.

That's sort of a pointless question. You might as well judge an artist for taking 2 hours to paint a picture you think might have been painted in half an hour. He chose to take that long. *shrug*

Why create reality where love can be so easiliy destroyed, by this I mean civilization that has those feeling.

etc...

I wish I had time to read Owl's stuff, but I have to run. Thanks for your post.

 

[Prototype]

^ sure.

The Chicago Astronomer - The 12 Planets of the Sumerians...

Its an astronomer scientist forum that documents the Sumerian texts. It is an ancient Altaic language.



By the way, lets all agree that interdisciplinary theories is the next step of scientific discovery.

Hmm...

 

[Virtual ghost]

I can't resist not to relpy on your reply, Since my last post was written quite fast and I think that I have some explaining to do.

I do need to point out that it is already clear that you are operating backwards -- i.e., you're starting with ideals of your own that have yet been unargued, then drawing your conclusions from them.

1. A good god would not allow nuclear weapons.
2. A good god would not allow serious/Dangerous diseases.
3. If God exists, he is not a good God.

A forward (not backward) assess would say:
1. The potential for nuclear weapons exist.
2. Serious/Dangerous diseases exist.
3. What is the full range of possibilities in regards to God for such things existing? [What purposes would #1 and #2 serve? Are they residual of good things or wholly evil? And so on.]

These are actually two very different approaches. The first one includes an inherent ideal/non-ideal (or even good/evil) moral judgment.

I don't see the problem, the question was "why do you think that god of love do not exist?" and I said "god of love does not exist....." .
Something what is ideal for you for me it is fact/logical conclusion but I could have done things your way(analitical way) but then I would need alot of time and post would be huge.

So God is not loving (i.e., evil, I think, in how you're discussing this) because if he was, he would give people more time to redeem themselves but sometimes calls the game early.

We were talking about god of love here but here is what I realy think.
God of love is oxymoron for me because if he is absolute that means that he is a point where everything merges and becuse he can't be god of love but if everthing is no merging in him then he is not god.

It's inevitable that they would.

So you're saying that behavior springs from inborn forces that God is conjectured to place there anyway, which means he's punishing people for them partly behaving as he created them to behave. (JUst asking for clarification.)

Yes.
If this reality was created by any god it is unavoidable that he has no right to judge anyone.

Determinism to me partly removes the NEED for religion. i.e., if the machine runs all by itself and outcome is predetermined based on the earlier state of the system, then moral values seem to have no place.

Although it still does not explain why the system exists in the first place.

Well, I know why I am hardcore atheist. But there is also no space for amoral values as wall. Entire sistem in this case is one big chain reaction and I know it is hard to accept the idea that you don't control any aspect of your life and you never did and you never will.

I can ask counter question "why god exists?" or be the bastard and say, define - exist.

I think our concept of love is based on choice, yes.

Love is a choice to do what is best for someone else or to accept/trust them into a relationship, when there is no compulsion or need to do so. If you have no choice, you can't really choose to love.

See above.

Surely you have read one of the zillions of fantasy novels out there where the characters spent their lives unsure of what was going on, but afterwards discovered that if they had been told the truth up front, they would not have persevered to the end and benefited from things.

Even apply it to psychology. People don't change and grow unless they have to. If they knew what was going on, they might not change. Change is very desirable as part of life.

Now applying this very broad concept to religion. You can see lots of reasons why a loving God might not just spill the beans up front. I can't say which is true; I'm simply saying there are scenarios that make the "not knowing" reasonably understandable.

I think that here we have one P vs. J conflict. Why would he put everybody on the trip and give them so short lives? Also he created so big amount of facts that no one can learn them. Not even next generation becuse they are going from the start and it looks the way to overcome this problem is to leave entire human nature behind.

And people change, even when they don't want to.

God creates fear, doubt, and despair? Those are feeling states -- possibilities inherent in the human system (i.e., biology). We choose whether or not to give into them and indulge them, and even act on them. Just because they exist really says nothing about God; it matters only what the overall intent of having such a system was in the first place, and if that system enables us to reach pinnacles of growth, then now it is a person's choice that determines the value of having the potential for despair -- not any sort of "God." God would have just created the machinery, but not how it was used.

Why playing games with people at all?
Here you are saying that you can control when you will feel bad and how much bad you will feel. You can do that?

...sorry, but not really.

I identified with the earlier things more.

I do wrestle with the thought of "Why so much pain in the world?"

But I live within the system. I can't evaluate it from the outside. From a personal standpoint, I can despise the pain and be angry at a God figure. From an impersonal standpoint, trying to use my mind and imagination, I can visualize why that sort of experience might be necessary in order to spur growth.

But why would god want growth? This argument is the oposite of what did you just said few moments ago. Why are you so much against pain or why do you believe in concept of pain since it is one of the values that god give you to accept of not to accept.

A book I was recently reading talked about overcoming childhood pains, especially with disappointment in the parents, and the author made the point that usually people who have undergone those terribly emotionally painful childhoods are also highly sensitive, empathic, broad/far-seeing... and have a sense and longing for beauty, goodness, and joy that others who had better childhoods do not. They can find beauty in everything.

So he advises to accept the experiences for what they were, true, but also to not hold bitterness over them and to see them in some ways as a gift that brought "goodness" and the desire for it into clearer focus.

Just another idea for you to consider.

Well I think that I was loved too much as a child and that pushed me even further from it also beauty is one of the most subjective terms ever.

Oh, there's lots of bad, B-rate movies out there.

If you want a personal opinion, that's why I think the conservative religious stance on homosexuality (and similar things) is crap. Especially if you look at what gets said by Jesus. But that's another issue.

But what is god doing to prevent the conflict and create real love in this world. Is it because he is absoulute and on that level human emotions are impossible or he is interested in somethig else so he created homosexuality as
means of the channeling the chain reaction?

Does Satan actually exist in the way you bring him up, or is that just partly another part of the "Paradise Lost" myth read back into modern Christianity? I don't know.

Actally I don't see a single reason why satan would exist?

With limited resources, any world fills up and/or gets polluted. Everything is fighting for the same living space, with different needs.

Did you ever heard the term "regeneration rate" ?

What other energy source options are palatable to you? Do they have no flaws in them either?

I have impression that you have missed the point totally. God created the laws of physics. So why did he created this laws? Why would he created something what can be so harmfull to people and you have unlimited option.

That's sort of a pointless question. You might as well judge an artist for taking 2 hours to paint a picture you think might have been painted in half an hour. He chose to take that long. *shrug*

P - J conflict once again.
My point is that if love is so important why waiting so long? Even if he was just feeling creative he did not aim at the love totally so it look like that it is not absolute priority.

 

[Eldanen]

Why, after all of this, does God decide, "hey, those homo sapiens over there are sinful and need to be moral according to my rules"? Why does God put himself in human form in some remote desert part of Earth to die for our sins that weren't committed (Adam and Eve never existed and never 'sinned' against God)? Why after all this time, with all these organisms over billions of years, does God decide that its about time for him to show himself? Why didn't he show himself to the other Highly-Conscious beings that existed in the Homo Genus? What about people that never hear the word of Jesus, are they forgiven for their imaginary sin, you would think that if he was a decent and intelligent God he would show himself to everyone at once to prove his existence? What happens to other organisms in general, when they die do they just cease to exist, saved from hell but exempt from heaven?

This is probably the main issue I have with believing Christianity as it is written in the Bible. If the theory of evolution is true (which it is, I believe), and the creation count is metaphorical, then you can't have a literal interpretation of a salvation. It's recorded in the book of Genesis that man would die because he sinned, and yet we know that death is a natural process of life, and that it occurred before Adam and Eve existed. Was there any sin before Adam and Eve? If the God of the Bible is true, then yes, sin would have to have been around since the beginning of time. So sin would have naturally been a part of the world. Whose fault would that be? God's. Not ours. So why would he "punish" us for such a thing? Paul makes a note in the NT that death entered in by Adam and that we should be reconciled by Jesus. Or else. Why would God make up a bunch of rules against our nature (requiring perfection) when it's clearly an impossible thing. The Bible (as a whole) to me seems schizophrenic.

 

[aguanile]

Eldanen, "schizophrenic" is a good word to describe it.

 

[Sniffles]

Oh boy, I'll just throw in my two cents into this discussion and leave it at that.

Singularity --> Big Bang due to high vaccum pressure -->

I fail to see how the Big Bang theory disproves the Christian God, not least of which because the theory itself was first developed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.

The world was once thought to be flat... They were wrong!

Recent historical studies have discovered that no educated person(Christian or no) since the 3rd century BC has ever believed the world was flat. Most of the Church Fathers believed the earth was round.

Lol Occam's Razor. Don't you ever use that phrase again. Ever!

Yeah it's pretty ironic when numerous atheists and "skeptics" use a logical formula devised by a Francisican monk to refute Christianity.

 

[Didums]

I fail to see how the Big Bang theory disproves the Christian God, not least of which because the theory itself was first developed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.

That wasn't my argument, at all. That was just part of my premise, Owl did a summary of my argument if you wanna go look at that. Also, the theory being developed by a catholic priest is neither in support nor against the theory itself. Also, Georges Lemaitre's Big Bang was very much different from the one we know today.

 

[Sniffles]

That wasn't my argument, at all. That was just part of my premise

And I'm pointing out the inconsistency of that premise in regards to your overall argument.

Also, the theory being developed by a catholic priest is neither in support nor against the theory itself.

Im not arguing against the Big Bang theory. Im arguing against the argument that it helps to disprove God's existence.

Same thing with the theory of Evolution. Most people who try to argue on that basis usually have never heard the concept of "Theistic Evolution" and the fact that many major Christian denominations adhere to it, and even has support from numerous academics and even scientists.

And even if they do, they often pull a "no true scotsman" ploy trying to demonstrate that they're not really "Christians" and only "Creationists" can be so(and by "Creationists" they usually mean Young Earth Creationists, not Old Earth ones).

Of course that begs plenty of questions, considering that Christianity itself grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. One early Christian text, the Epistle of Barnabas from the first century AD, even condemns those who take scriptures literally as dupes of the Devil.


So the issue is not science vs religion - it never has been. It is, always had been, and always will be a theological-philosophical debate.