Does God exist? (43 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

did someone say relativity??

D t' = g D t

why is it that when you travel close to the speed of light it will look like a tunnel of white light "coincidently" exactly what is seen after people die and are on their way to heaven? how could they describe this effect??

Um?

The "near death experience" is phenomena that can be reproduced by electrical stimulation of the parietal lobe.

And no one's been near to the speed of light; ergo, we don't know what it'd look like (apart from extreme blueshifting).

 

[surjulz]

I see where you're coming from- I used to believe this, to. And I'm still figuring things out for myself. But "someone going to hell is someone getting what they wanted: being eternally seperated from god" doesn't make sense to me if the person doesn't believe in god in the first place- they wouldn't want to be seperated from god because they don't even believe in God.

A friend of mine who is in training to become a pastor said she views Jesus' death as defeating hell- he, according to the Word, went to hell to defeat Satan, so in doing so we do not have to go to hell anymore. He has ridden us of our sins.

And why would god allow us someone to be created, if he knew they would end up in eternal hell. If I was god, I would hate to watch them live their life if I knew that would occur.

If god is love, how could he bare one of his children being in hell for all eternity, just because with their free will, they denied his existence?
God's mind to me, isn't as small and judgmental like that, like us human beings. It's accepting- which is love.

I'll shut up now

...but God isn't indifferent to our choice not to acknowledge him, at the heart of the concept of sin is the idea that we are in rebellion against God. this isn't just some abstract notion of rejecting God, but this also leads to actions that are unjust, and which need to be dealt with, and from a Christian POV this is why by enlarge why the world is what it is today.

With hell, it would have been created for Satan and those others who rebelled against God. If we humans do the same thing, it would be unjust of God to not punish humans in the same way. But because God does love us, He did something so this need not be the case...

Yes it is challanging to me personally to think that a lot of people may not be going to heaven, but God did give us a way out...

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Why I call myself an Atheist.

• I see no way to separate belief in 'God' from belief in other supernatural entities, such as fairies. I (like all people) live in a reality constructed on the basis of a few axioms and my observations. It is possible that there is a God (or fairy, flying reindeer or Santa Claus) that exists outside of my constructed reality however until I have evidence of such a thing as far as my reality is concerned it does not exist.
  
• Which God am I to believe in? There have been/still are many different religions positing many different 'gods'. Many people who believed just as strongly as you do in the god of their religion, who would argue for their god just as fervently have died out and their religion with them. What makes your religion any different from those of the past? If you are to be honest I think you will find nothing.
  
• People don't really believe in it anyway. For the most part I do not believe that people truly believe in God/The afterlife, they just really WANT it to be true. I think most people are like me and get extremely upset when a beloved relative dies because death is something fearful and permanent to us - I do not believe that I would feel the same if I knew it was just like a perhaps painful trip to an exotic holiday location and that I will hopefully one day get there too, I simply wouldn't feel the same loss. As a side note, I think it proves intellectual honesty to argue something is true that you wish was not, whereas arguing something is true that you're extremely glad is true (to the extent of a gift such a truth would be) I think fairly opens up the possibility that you would be likely to ignore evidence to the contrary.
  
• Why would a God even care? Even if we somehow one day show that a supernatural force was needed to create this universe, it still won't go anywhere near proving that any form of personal god exists. It could just as easily be some 'supernatural' mechanism or force that has no personal qualities at all. We could just as easily be some supernatural accident or side effect. If you're a proponent of creationism then all you're supporting is that 'something intelligent' started it all. It doesn't need to be omniscient or omnipotent, the only power it needs is to begin the creation of the universe.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Yes exactly and the reason he does not stop us from sinning is because he gives us the choice he gives us free will in order to decide our own way and whether or not to follow him but according to the bible anyone that does not follow him is going ot hell.

How do we have free will and not a predestined fate if an omniscient god exists? I.e. God knows the future right? Well then he knows what I'm going to do in 5 seconds time, I have to do that, my future is already pre-determined.

At the beggining of time he told us the punishment for sin is death we had the choice to sin.

He never told me this, he told some other guy who made the mistake...

I know that God is real based on the way i have seen him work in my own life his answers to prayer and the effect on other peoples lives.

Can you prove that it was God that answered your prayers and not Satan in some nefarious plot?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

no of course i can not prove it but it is a matter of faith.

Is there a difference between you believing God answered your prayers and me believing magical pixies sometimes do my bidding by concentrating my thoughts?

Everybody sins it is a condition that has been passed down.

Yeah it's not like I could have not been a decendant of Adam/Eve right? It's like punishing a murderers son... seems quite strange.

Although we sin there is a way out and that is by following Jesus. He gives us the option to change our life and to follow him. It is our choice.

God knows the future right? So God knows whether or not I will accept jesus. If God already knows that in the future I will not accept Jesus, this means I have a predetermined fate and no choice.

Also, let's get more practical... What if I never hear about jesus? What if I happened to be born into a Muslim country where the teachings of jesus are shunned in favours of others? It turns out that what family/area you're born into greatly determines whether you'll wind up a Christian. This seems to give people greater ability to choose than others - Why?

 

[Iron]

Why I call myself an Atheist.

NTB, you have always struck me as very adamant that God does not exist, but you also seem very angry at him for not existing.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

He know what u are going to do but it is still your choice he does not determine your fate you do it is just he knows what decision is going to be

If someone knows my future for certain it means I have a predetermined fate in linear time, in non-linear time perhaps you could say that I've already chosen my own fate, but this seems to me to leave an extremely odd conception of 'choice' whereby our current self is a slave to our future self. IMO the problem is probably more because a future does not exist yet and perhaps my issue is more with the problems that come about as a part of that to make such a thing impossible... an argument for another time, I just thought it might be somewhat more interesting than the usual responses.

What do you think about people who are born in muslim nations/in non-christian families, are they just unlucky?

NTB, you have always struck me as very adamant that God does not exist, but you also seem very angry at him for not existing.

I don't get what you mean. I admit that I really, truly, powerfully wish that there was an afterlife/God, so in a sense I suppose I'm extremely disappointed with the lack of a God, but to pose that I'm "Angry at him" while maybe for rhetorical effect seems to dirty the waters although I secretly believe in God a little and thus am being inconsistent to claim he doesn't exist.

 

[Iron]

Just trying to mess with your head.
The whole democratic party needs to chill out

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Just trying to mess with your head.
The whole democratic party needs to chill out

I don't get the new Iron, it seems like you've become extremely jaded

 

[beachee99]

The world we live in is very hypocritical. We shun the idea of solely oral teachings on the 'chinese whispers' theory. However this brings to light the fact that the bible was not written like a diary accounting events in immediacy, but written far after the event.

This is a more colloquial side to the argument, but do you remember when your a kid, and anything you see or do seems so much grander, so much more fantastic and even as an adult you believe it to still be as great. Apply this theory to the bible. If you thought it was a fantastic occurrence, but when reflecting on it to write it down, you see that it isn't all as good as you thought and you exaggerate here and there.

Also not to forget the vast numbers of mistranslations due to the fact that many languages have been inputed into all forms of religious literature, and the likelihood of illiteracy was very high.

In saying this, i am indicating , that my belief, the belief in no god, and the fact that if there was surely in his/her or their grace they would respect my decision in their holy light . If as many teachings they speak of the holy idol as perfection. Surely in their perfection they have no need for idolisation. That they can see into our deepest feelings to reveal what we think and we would have no need for this waste of time, argument and bloodshed over the religious unknown.

Maybe the agnostic way of live you life to its fullest, contribute greatly to the survival of our race, and respect all those around you being an overall good person is the way. If there is a god or gods your decision should be admired and respected, as you have chosen not to anger them ( as apparently being perfect allows you to show wrath) by idolising a false god. When the time of judgement comes you, in a neutral position, shall fall into the greatest of light.

What i am saying is, whether god exists or not, whether his teachings are accurate or inaccurate, the religions of the world should play NO part in the way our politics work, the way our relations with those of other religions work, and should in no way effect our ability to make new relationships as we please and further the survival of the human race. Because at the moment, with the war on terror ( or the war on non american religion and ideals ), the unrest in all regions of the world, and the poverty and overall disrespect for some people, it seems the great religious superpowers have got it wrong ... you should not be trying to make your religion the right and superior way. For that would not be respectful and what would your path to whatever afterlife you are trying to attain be like if that tarnished your life's journey.

Cheers, i felt like having a rant.

 

[BradCube]

What you've said still doesn't show that more than one choice is possible. That we don't always act in accordance with our values doesn't entail that multiple chocies are always available at those points where we deviate.

Also, it is not our lack of free will which prevents me from believing in objective morality. The sort of argument that I endorse is more along the lines of what Richard Joyce provides in The Myth of Morality.

That looks like quite a good book although it has quite a hefty price attached to it!

Again, as I said before, to convincingly show that I could have made the other choice, I would have to go back and time and choose the other choice. With this in mind it becomes an impossibility to prove that I could have or couldn't have made a choice other than what I did.

In my mind I don't see anything that physically stops me from choosing one choice rather than another. It is all based on the reasoning process I am going through at the time, which I could choose or reason to even ignore.

It actually quite an interesting argument, because while I believe that an omnipotent God could know all the choices we will make, I don't think this means that we aren't able to make choice with our free will.

But music, visual art and literature are valuable and meaningful. It is just that that they are only valuable/meaningful in a relative/subjective sense. I don't see why this makes the entire discourse meaningless. Suppose that two individuals see immense beauty in different artists and try to convey their subjective meanings (that they attach to each respective artwork) to one another. I don't understand how you deem all this meaningless. Also, it can be objectively true that "individual X values Y". At the least there is no reason to throw meta-discourse out the window. Human existence is rife with subjectivity (which breeds relativity) - we experience the world from a first person view! To reject all discourse which deals with the relative seems also to reject all discussion of the human condition.

I think the section which I have highlighted sums up where I was going in my train of thought. If there is no meaning or value outside of what we have constructed, then everything we have constructed (morality, value, worth and meaning itself) is essentially and ultimately meaningless.

We have debated about a lot of things, but I really disagree with this - almost to the point where I have trouble trying to understand what you are saying. I can't see any reason why objective morality is necessary for conflict and conflict resolution. I never said conflict resolution is morally valuable. Simply that, in practical terms, it is useful. I simply don't understand why objective morality is necessary for all this...

I think you may have misunderstood some of what I said. I don't think objective morality is necessary for conflict and its resolution - only for there to be some importance in it. If there is importance in conflict resolution then it comes back to what someone believes "ought" to be or "should" be done. Certainly they could be tools for conflict resolution, but I would think there could be usefulness in constant conflict too right?

 

[BradCube]

I over-reacted. Sorry. It seems there is a fundamental difference in the way we perceive the world, however. I seek the truth; you seek the truth as long as it doesn't conflict with your quest for the divine. I will leave it at that.

You know what, maybe you are correct, although possibly not to the degree you are suggesting. I would say that I prefer to look for any possible reason there could be for a God's existance than his non-existance. Why? Simply because if there is no reason, purpose or meaning behind the chaos of life then I don't feel like I have all too much reason for sustaining my existance.

I would like to think that I give all evidence a fair and reasonable inspection, but if there is a reason or escape for God within in it, I will pursue it. This may sound like the dis-honest confession of a christian, but I hope it doesn't come across too much like that. The bible says that if we seek God with all of our heart than we will find him, so I am simply putting this into action and testing it.

 

[BradCube]

Why I call myself an Atheist.

• I see no way to separate belief in 'God' from belief in other supernatural entities, such as fairies. I (like all people) live in a reality constructed on the basis of a few axioms and my observations. It is possible that there is a God (or fairy, flying reindeer or Santa Claus) that exists outside of my constructed reality however until I have evidence of such a thing as far as my reality is concerned it does not exist.
  
• Which God am I to believe in? There have been/still are many different religions positing many different 'gods'. Many people who believed just as strongly as you do in the god of their religion, who would argue for their god just as fervently have died out and their religion with them. What makes your religion any different from those of the past? If you are to be honest I think you will find nothing.
  
• People don't really believe in it anyway. For the most part I do not believe that people truly believe in God/The afterlife, they just really WANT it to be true. I think most people are like me and get extremely upset when a beloved relative dies because death is something fearful and permanent to us - I do not believe that I would feel the same if I knew it was just like a perhaps painful trip to an exotic holiday location and that I will hopefully one day get there too, I simply wouldn't feel the same loss. As a side note, I think it proves intellectual honesty to argue something is true that you wish was not, whereas arguing something is true that you're extremely glad is true (to the extent of a gift such a truth would be) I think fairly opens up the possibility that you would be likely to ignore evidence to the contrary.
  
• Why would a God even care? Even if we somehow one day show that a supernatural force was needed to create this universe, it still won't go anywhere near proving that any form of personal god exists. It could just as easily be some 'supernatural' mechanism or force that has no personal qualities at all. We could just as easily be some supernatural accident or side effect. If you're a proponent of creationism then all you're supporting is that 'something intelligent' started it all. It doesn't need to be omniscient or omnipotent, the only power it needs is to begin the creation of the universe.

You realize that all of these points are reason for belief in agnosticism and not atheism?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Agnosticism is my epistemological position, however to call myself an agnostic seems rather strange considering I am as agnostic about God's non-existence as I am any question.

 

[BradCube]

how can a reasoning process be choosen on anything other then reasons from its own processes?

Yeah, you're probably right here! ha ha. It does seem a little backward to reason that you don't have to reason after all

Still, I think we end up with a case where it is impossible to prove that we can or cannot choose either choice - at least with any sense of definitive proof.

Edit: By the way 3unitz, just about to re-read through a chapter that will help me answer your question of "why Christianity?" (since it also ties in with one of youBROKEmyLIFE's points.)

 

[KFunk]

That looks like quite a good book although it has quite a hefty price attached to it!

Again, as I said before, to convincingly show that I could have made the other choice, I would have to go back and time and choose the other choice. With this in mind it becomes an impossibility to prove that I could have or couldn't have made a choice other than what I did.

In my mind I don't see anything that physically stops me from choosing one choice rather than another. It is all based on the reasoning process I am going through at the time, which I could choose or reason to even ignore.

It actually quite an interesting argument, because while I believe that an omnipotent God could know all the choices we will make, I don't think this means that we aren't able to make choice with our free will.

Aye, it is a good book (and it's half the price in paperback! though still on the expensive side... as much philosophy is, sadly).

There are a couple things I want to point out with regards to what you wrote above:

(1) You seem to be constantly falling back on new mechanisms for freedom. I provide an argument that the will can't be free and so you say 'ah, it must be reason that allows freedom!'. I then try to show that similar arguments apply to reason but then you say 'but there must be a faculty which can choose whether or not to go with a given reason'. Do you see how this is a fairly tenuous argument? Firstly, it isn't constructive - i.e. you're not making a strong positive argument for why free will is possible - and is instead an ad hoc excercise of shifting positions and defending them.

(2) It's a very poor argument to claim that it is impossible to prove that either free will does or does not exist and thus to simply accept that it does. I've provided you with plenty of reasons why free will is problematic and so far your main reply has been to assert 'but I know I could have chosen otherwise'. Conviction works wonders in politics but it shouldn't be allowed to pull too much weight in philosophical debate. At a bare minimum you need to explain how free will could be possible. You haven't explained how all the incompatibilities (with the world- and self-relevance of our actions) that I have brought up in the past might be dissolved. Conviction alone doesn't constitute a sound counter-argument.

I think the section which I have highlighted sums up where I was going in my train of thought. If there is no meaning or value outside of what we have constructed, then everything we have constructed (morality, value, worth and meaning itself) is essentially and ultimately meaningless.

A lot of things are constructs - take models of physics for example. In most cases it will be possible to fit the same set of data to a great number of different models (the majority of which will be discouraged by ockham's razor or for the sake of economy). We don't have access to all the relevant information about the universe and so it may be the case that we always rely on approximations to the 'real' thing (though very good approximations, I should point out). Money is a social construct. Public institutions (banks, governments...) are social constructs. Most of our social world, and thus our very lives, consists of social constructs. Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but even the community and heirachy that constitutes a 'church' is a social construct.

If you want to deem all these things meaningless, then that's your choice. While I agree with the nihilist position that things lack objective meaning it still doesn't prescribe against the personal construction of meaning. Enter existentialism...

I think you may have misunderstood some of what I said. I don't think objective morality is necessary for conflict and its resolution - only for there to be some importance in it. If there is importance in conflict resolution then it comes back to what someone believes "ought" to be or "should" be done. Certainly they could be tools for conflict resolution, but I would think there could be usefulness in constant conflict too right?

You're using the wrong sense of 'importance' though. It doesn't matter if things aren't objectively morally important after we accept moral relativism. It is more than enough that they be of practical significance and impact upon our desire to flourish and live satisfying lives. Why would we expect to find anything more once objective morals have been buried six feet under?

 

[BradCube]

Aye, it is a good book (and it's half the price in paperback! though still on the expensive side... as much philosophy is, sadly).

There are a couple things I want to point out with regards to what you wrote above:

(1) You seem to be constantly falling back on new mechanisms for freedom. I provide an argument that the will can't be free and so you say 'ah, it must be reason that allows freedom!'. I then try to show that similar arguments apply to reason but then you say 'but there must be a faculty which can choose whether or not to go with a given reason'. Do you see how this is a fairly tenuous argument? Firstly, it isn't constructive - i.e. you're not making a strong positive argument for why free will is possible - and is instead an ad hoc excercise of shifting positions and defending them.

(2) It's a very poor argument to claim that it is impossible to prove that either free will does or does not exist and thus to simply accept that it does. I've provided you with plenty of reasons why free will is problematic and so far your main reply has been to assert 'but I know I could have chosen otherwise'. Conviction works wonders in politics but it shouldn't be allowed to pull too much weight in philosophical debate. At a bare minimum you need to explain how free will could be possible. You haven't explained how all the incompatibilities (with the world- and self-relevance of our actions) that I have brought up in the past might be dissolved. Conviction alone doesn't constitute a sound counter-argument.

You know what? I've been tossing this round in my head for the past hour or so, and I think I am in agreement with you at the moment. If reasoning is used in all choices then of course we are bound to make one decision over another. I think it's finally clicking.

The problem I guess I then find, is that an obvious conclusion may be that we don't have control over our choices and therefore can't take responsibility for them. This is pretty oppositional to my current beliefs so I am wondering if there is a way out that I have missed? In my mind I have proposed a new solution.

P.S. For the record I don't mind if I am being ad hoc as I am still formulating and modifying what I believe in and I should be in all sense's ad hoc in this matter. I certainly don't want to refuse to change my beliefs if they do not make sense!

Let us for a second assume that objective morality does exist. If it does exist, is it still possible that despite them being bound to carry out a decision that is immoral, they still can be responsible for that decision? I believe so, because the person making the decision still knows that what they are doing is immoral. When asked "How can you be responsible for a decision you were bound to make?", the individual can simply reply "because I knew it was wrong" and ultimately they did choose to carry through the decision.

I must thank you once again though Kfunk, my belief in free will is certainly different to what I had originally instigated. Much of this is due to your patience and detailed explanations

A lot of things are constructs - take models of physics for example. In most cases it will be possible to fit the same set of data to a great number of different models (the majority of which will be discouraged by ockham's razor or for the sake of economy). We don't have access to all the relevant information about the universe and so it may be the case that we always rely on approximations to the 'real' thing (though very good approximations, I should point out). Money is a social construct. Public institutions (banks, governments...) are social constructs. Most of our social world, and thus our very lives, consists of social constructs. Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but even the community and heirachy that constitutes a 'church' is a social construct.


If you want to deem all these things meaningless, then that's your choice. While I agree with the nihilist position that things lack objective meaning it still doesn't prescribe against the personal construction of meaning. Enter existentialism...

If indeed there is no meaning outside of ourselves then yes, I would deem all of the things you have mentioned above as meaningless - and I realize that is my choice. To me, saying that personally constructed meaning has meaning is akin to creating your own idol from scraps and worshiping it as God.

You're using the wrong sense of 'importance' though. It doesn't matter if things aren't objectively morally important after we accept moral relativism. It is more than enough that they be of practical significance and impact upon our desire to flourish and live satisfying lives. Why would we expect to find anything more once objective morals have been buried six feet under?

If I'm using the wrong sense of importance, then it is simply misinterpretation from your original post and I apologize.

"It is more than enough that they be of practical significance and impact upon our desire to flourish and live satisfying lives." I was really interested in this so I thought it was worth quoting again. 2 main things, this seems to suggest that the "right" thing to do when in the realization of moral relativism is to flourish and live a satisfying life. Surely it would be just as "right" to live a degenerative and unsatisfying life? Second point is more of a personal reflection. If indeed there is nothing outside of our own constructed meaning, then I doubt I could ever live a life that I would regard as flourishing or satisfying.

 

[KFunk]

You know what? I've been tossing this round in my head for the past hour or so, and I think I am in agreement with you at the moment. If reasoning is used in all choices then of course we are bound to make one decision over another. I think it's finally clicking.

The problem I guess I then find, is that an obvious conclusion may be that we don't have control over our choices and therefore can't take responsibility for them. This is pretty oppositional to my current beliefs so I am wondering if there is a way out that I have missed? In my mind I have proposed a new solution.

P.S. For the record I don't mind if I am being ad hoc as I am still formulating and modifying what I believe in and I should be in all sense's ad hoc in this matter. I certainly don't want to refuse to change my beliefs if they do not make sense!

Let us for a second assume that objective morality does exist. If it does exist, is it still possible that despite them being bound to carry out a decision that is immoral, they still can be responsible for that decision? I believe so, because the person making the decision still knows that what they are doing is immoral. When asked "How can you be responsible for a decision you were bound to make?", the individual can simply reply "because I knew it was wrong" and ultimately they did choose to carry through the decision.

I must thank you once again though Kfunk, my belief in free will is certainly different to what I had originally instigated. Much of this is due to your patience and detailed explanations

No problem mate. On 'ad hoc' arguments - yeah it's fair enough for you to change positions.

Certainly I think we can apply an attenuated form of responsibility to individuals' actions. We must always realise, however, that although they commit bad actions because of their personal qualities, these core qualities will have been determined by forces external to their will (genes and environment). To quote Schopenhauer "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Of course the latter part of this quote needs to be qualified since there are examples of individuals actively trying to change their will (e.g. trying not to be attracted to an innapropriate object of desire) but they cannot choose whether or not they have the capacity to affect such changes in the first place. Nonetheless, since I think a person's beliefs, desires, values, and history make up the larger part of who they are I think it is reasonable to hold them responsible for their actions, even if they are not wholly responsible for who they are. Where possible I am more inclined to support rehabilitation than punishment, however.

If indeed there is no meaning outside of ourselves then yes, I would deem all of the things you have mentioned above as meaningless - and I realize that is my choice. To me, saying that personally constructed meaning has meaning is akin to creating your own idol from scraps and worshiping it as God.

I think this is a pity. Should god exist, what capacity do you think they have which allows meaning to exist in this 'proper' (non-idol scraps) sense? Is it rediculous to suggest that, should god exist, humans might also have been gifted with this capacity to attribute meaning?

If I'm using the wrong sense of importance, then it is simply misinterpretation from your original post and I apologize.

"It is more than enough that they be of practical significance and impact upon our desire to flourish and live satisfying lives." I was really interested in this so I thought it was worth quoting again. 2 main things, this seems to suggest that the "right" thing to do when in the realization of moral relativism is to flourish and live a satisfying life. Surely it would be just as "right" to live a degenerative and unsatisfying life? Second point is more of a personal reflection. If indeed there is nothing outside of our own constructed meaning, then I doubt I could ever live a life that I would regard as flourishing or satisfying.

I'm not trying to say that there is an objective, moral imperative to flourish and be happy. Rather, I think that most people, by nature, want to flourish (in a broad sense) and so anything which impacts on their ability to do so has to be viewed as being important, relative to the people involved. Even after accepting relativism we can speak in terms of hypothetical imperatives , e.g. IF you desire X THEN you should engage in the path of action Y. Such an imperative makes no objective, categorical 'ought' claim, but instead suggests, in practical terms, how one might satisfy their personal ends. Essentially I think that most people want to flourish (of courses there are cases of those who are depressed, self-destructive or without a sense of agency etc...) and that people are found to have many core desires in common. If we tap into this core thread of common goals then I think a system of hypothetical imperatives may prove to be a feasible substitute for classical, Kantian categorical imperatives.

Again, I find it sad that you find it hard to live in such a world. I wouldn't write off the possibility, however. I too once strived towards (what I now deem somewhat naive) Platonic absolutes, but over the years, through my readings, I've come to accept and embrace a self- and society-constructed world. If the church is needed as a crutch, then that's fair enough, but it is also worth considering that maybe you haven't been exposed to the right ideas yet.

 

[Trampoline Man]

Carl Sagan does a tremendous job of telling everyone to STFU in the kindest possible way.

 

[BradCube]

Why Christianity?

What follows is just some thoughts that have contributed to my current belief in Christianity being accurate. This being as opposed to other major world religions and is done in response to 3unitz and anyone else that would like to read along

At it's base, Christianity is about Christ, who he was and what he means for Earth. We have 3 options when addressing the person and nature of Christ.

1. He was a liar
2. He was a lunatic
3. He was who he said he was (savior of the world)

Some of you may have heard this before. It's a pretty old line of thought now (originally posed by C.S. Lewis if memory serves)

1. Position number one leaves a lot of questions open. Why would someone who knew they were lying, willingly go to their death for what they were saying (especially the sort of death that Christ went through)? What agenda did they have? How could a natural man, and a liar, rise from the dead? For these reasons, I find position one to be reasonably illogical unless it can be shown that there was an underlying motivation going on. I am yet to see such an idea proposed (at least with any credibility) and so I feel safe dismissing Jesus as a liar.

2nd position to we look at Jesus being a lunatic. That is, a man who claimed to be the savior of the world, who earnestly believed he was, but ultimately was not in touch with reality and certainly was not who he claimed to be. Problem with this is that there is nothing to suggest that Jesus did have psychological problems. From what we know of him, he maintained deep meaningful relationships, exhibited no inappropriate emotions and had pretty insightful comments make about humanity and its nature. We also have in play the claims that Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead. If he was merely a lunatic, one has to wonder how he did this things, or why it would be suggested that he did if he did not. We have another problem with the lunatic idea and that is the belief in him by his followers seems unwarranted if he was a lunatic. After all, who would follow a lunatic around, proclaim that he is Lord and go to their graves for it? Again we arrive at the same problems - they were liars, lunatics, or truthful in their beliefs. For these reasons, I also dismiss the notion that Jesus was a lunatic

3rd position is that Jesus was who he said he was - The Son of God, and the Savior of the world. If Jesus did perform miracles, was raised from the dead, claimed to be God, and could not have fallen into one the two above scenarios, I don't have too much trouble believing him.

Now apart from those points surrounding Jesus, we have some other issues when it comes to Christianity and that is that it claims to be the only way to God. In a time where we try to be politically correct in everything we say, such a point of view is seen as pretty arrogant. I think you will find however that many major world religions are exclusive in what they believe - that is, that they are the only truthful answer/solution. This can be put down to the fact that truth is exclusive by nature I suppose but it still presents a fairly reasonable objection for many people today. I personally have bigger objections to the claim that every persons belief is just as correct and truthful. The only way that such a claim could be reasonable in my mind is if there is no ultimate truth at all.

The bible itself has been shown to be astoundingly accurate in its records of history. Archeological digs and excavations has only confirmed what has been recorded in the bible. Any points where you feel evidence points away from current historical findings would certainly be worth our discussion

Biblical accounts hold together remarkably well, despite being from different authors. This lends itself to the authenticity of what they were reporting. (such as the events surrounding Christs death and resurrection)

My last point is not a proof for others but testimony on my behalf. In this way I don't expect it to be a convincing arguments of sorts, but it certainly is compelling for me and contributes to my belief in Christianity. I can attest that Christianity is true because I have experienced it. I have watched as biblical principles have been proven true time and time again. I have seen miracles. I have experienced the change in which Christianity has brought about both in myself and others.

Does this mean I don't have doubts? Of course not! I have many doubts, many of which I have discussed (sometimes painfully) with the people on these boards. In the end however, I realize that I will never have all of the answers and need to make a choice. Currently that choice is to believe and put my faith in Christianity - despite still having areas of unbelief.

I hope this goes someway, in at least providing some outline of why I currently believe in Christianity as opposed to other religions 3unitz. Here's hoping that it will lead to some productive discussion eh?