Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[Snorri1234]

Methinks you and Unrig don't quite see the point.

Of course the God of the Bible, assuming He exists, would be an explanation for this stuff! At least the original creation of the universe if nothing else.

That's not an explanation. Explanations cover the how, not the who.

Pointing to the seeming perfectness of the universe doesn't do anything, because we cannot actually comprehend how else the universe would be. If gravitation worked differently, we wouldn't have the slighest clue how life could exist or if it even could exist , but that's irrelevant.

I've already addressed that. If gravity were different by more than one part in ten to the umpteenth power, the universe never could have produced "just right" stars for rocky planets. It's not even theoretically conceivable that any kind of advanced life could exist without rocky planets.

Yes and by just right they mean live as we know it.
Besides, as Neutrino said, the universe could be created very differently and no life would exist. Maybe we're just lucky to live in this universe?

I'm trying to lay down a complete foundation showing that faith in the God of the Bible is the most reasonable choice. Don't worry, this topic is just the start.

But faith in the God of the bible isn't the most reasonable choice. I understand that you believe it is, but reason has nothing to do with this. As you said, it all comes down to faith.

[MeDeFe]

yodermk, if someone quotes Shakespeare today, does that mean it's divinely inspired? No, even though Shakespeare wrote several hundred years ago. I think it's safe to say that the people who wrote religious texts 2500 years ago already knew the older texts and if they liked a motive there's nothing to prevent them from using it. It has happened everywhere else, so why not within the bible?

[DangerBoy]

Not to sound mean, but how much detail has to be there for you to recognize that maybe, just maybe, it actually *was* divinely inspired?

Good point, but to answer your question I don't think any amount of intricate design or detail as you call it will be accepted. If they accepted that, then the possibility of a Creator would be the next logical step. After that, absolute moral rules. There's no way they're going to allow that within their worldview because they think those rules exist to deny them of pleasure or fun.

[Chystal Halon]

whats wrong with my link to an image on my sig???

[got tonkaed]

got tonkaed: Sure I think one should look at the things you mentioned. But just a "common understanding of the times?" Well for one, the timespan between Job, the Psalm, and Zechariah was probably over 500 years. Maybe closer to 1000.

Not to sound mean, but how much detail has to be there for you to recognize that maybe, just maybe, it actually *was* divinely inspired?

FWIW, Jeremiah also hits on another important point of science. 33:25 says that the laws of heaven and earth are fixed. Certainly this has proven to be true.

And yes, I figured that someone would point out that other verses in the Bible seem to contradict Big Bang cosmology. I was waiting. Unfortunately this is an area of disagreement among Christians, including probably some here. I used to be a young earth creationist myself, but when it became clear that the overwhelming evidence contradicted that position, I started to question my faith. I then did a more complete study of what the Bible says about Creation, and came to the conclusion that a young earth is just as unsound Biblically as it is scientifically.

Sure, a hyper-literal reading of the English version of Genesis 1 does certainly imply that Creation happened over a 6*24 hour period. However, that is taking a cursory view, and as one digs deeper into the text and cross references it to other parts of the Bible, it falls apart pretty fast. I actually have a more in-depth view of Genesis 1, which I will probably post sometime. I do believe that it is scientifically accurate when interpreted though broader definitions of the Hebrew words involved.

Of course one should i suppose alwasy consider the possiblity that as it is written are true, or divinely inspired, which is more relavant. However, i suppose i do still have a few issues with some of the things youve posted. Id argue your casual dismissal of the times notion is somewhat shortsighted. Yes we live in a world now where information is disseminated rather quickly, and 5 months may be a long time and change some local opinions.

However, antiquity is not nearly the same in terms of information changing views as quickly. If you step outside of mere scientific exploring, you could argue many of the many messages of the prophets in OT reflect a somewhat similar worldview, and the duration of time is just as long. If people in that period where not primarily scientific, and yet their general worldviews at least in the people we are concerned with (the religious leaders who are involved with a lot of this material) did not change, this is not nearly the leap in thought you claim it to be.

There is a lot of material out there to help bridge biblical accounts to scientific understanding. Much of it doesnt come from YE perspectives and much of it presents a lot of interesting arguments. However, you could level many of them with a very similar charge that was leveled in your last post, they are trying, in some cases desperatly trying, to merge their religious beliefs with their conception of the world. You will find the connections you wish to find out of the bible, because you choose to believe in the veracity of the bible, and to follow the force behind it.

[yodermk]

Methinks you and Unrig don't quite see the point.

Of course the God of the Bible, assuming He exists, would be an explanation for this stuff! At least the original creation of the universe if nothing else.

That's not an explanation. Explanations cover the how, not the who.

Ok. Well the Bible says how God created -- by speaking! "And God said, 'let there be' ..."

Scientific explanation? Not really, but explanation nevertheless. I don't think there could possibly be a scientific explanation of how everything came into existence from nothing, God or no god. The whole idea contradicts pretty much all our science knowledge.

Maybe we're just lucky to live in this universe?
[...]
But faith in the God of the bible isn't the most reasonable choice. I understand that you believe it is, but reason has nothing to do with this. As you said, it all comes down to faith.

I said it comes down to faith a while ago, before I added more to the argument. If all we knew was that there was a big bang universe, then you would have to have faith either way.

Either way, faith has to have reason for it, or else it's silly faith, like faith in the easter bunny or Santa Claus. (Or invisible pink unicorns, which some atheists like to antagonize Christians over.)

I have yet to see a single good reason from any atheist why the naturalistic view makes sense. Feel free to put forth a competing explanatory theory and build on it, as I am doing, and we'll let those readers who are undecided in the matter evaluate it themselves.

[Snorri1234]

Well the reason is because it has actual proof. At least evolution and the the fact something happend about 13 billion years ago which formed our universe do. All we know at the moment is that the universe suddenly formed from a point and is expanding at the moment. Whether God sparked that expansion or something else did doesn't matter here, because neither explanation makes more sense. (Unless ofcourse you reason that, because the bible is wrong on other accounts, it isn't reasonable to assume this time it is correct. But that isn't good reasoning.)

[unriggable]

Yodermk, are you kidding? That last sentence is really sad. Because when you see layer after layer in the ground:
A. They have different contents and minerals, meaning a different type of soil at the time.
B. They have different creatures, none of which are alive today (unless you're digging the upper sides, past the cretaceous), however we see similar creatures to those alive today.

[Jasmine_me]

lol i noticed every post replies here are way too loooooooooooong... for me.. :p... which makes me kinda hard to read it..

[MeDeFe]

What? Long replies make you hard? O.o

[Iliad]

lol i noticed every post replies here are way too loooooooooooong... for me.. :p... which makes me kinda hard to read it..

stop spamming. No-one is forcing you to read it so don't cry because you can't read it

[Jasmine_me]

.... ooo...sorry ..(didnt cry btw )

[MR. Nate]

[quote="Neutrino"]
Weak Anthropic Principle: "We see the universe the way it is because we exist"

When I saw this, it triggered a question in my head. This could be involved or ridiculous, so try to hear me out. (and jasmine, it will be short)

Coming from an evolutionary point of view requires that we believe that we have evolved for the purpose of survival. Based on that, what leads us to believe that we can possibly know whether or not we know anything? Restated, evolution leads to survival, not truth. Why do we assume we can know truth.

Clearly, I'm arguing the superiority of my epistemology, but I am curious, and the question we are facing is why I (and others like me) believe. But this is a legitimate question on my part, in that I don't know how an atheist can assume to know that anything exists or doesn't exist.

[MeDeFe]

I think the lack of belief in any deities can be expanded to the lack of belief in evil demons making us believe we have bodies when we really don't or brains in jars that are being manipulated by mad scientists.



Furthermore, and even better, a faulty perception (1) or a faulty interpretation (2) of what we perceive would not seem to be of advantage for survival.
(1) we do not perceive the world correctly.
That might mean we perceive things that are not there or we do not perceive things that are there or even both. Either is enough to kill us, if you don't notice the predator that's coming up behind you because your senses aren't working properly, you're likely to be eaten. Once that has happened you can no longer pass on your genetic code.
Perceiving things which aren't there can be almost as bad, fleeing from monsters noone else sees would definitely count as "weird behaviour", at least today, besides, it costs energy that could be better spent elsewhere. Or trying to cross a river on a fallen tree that isn't there could get you drowned.

(2) We do not interpret what we perceive correctly
A simple example: if our brains keeps mixing up colours we might not be able to tell if we're eating the poisonous green berries that taste like shit or the red ones that taste like shit but at least don't make you sick.


So from a very basic evolutionary point of view it would appear that we can trust our senses to tell us the truth about the world around us.

[MR. Nate]

I wasn't particularly discussing "brains in jars" clearly, our senses make sense from an evolutionary point of view. I was referring to truth as an abstract construct.

[daddy1gringo]

Nice idea, but that still makes us humans nothing more than machines that function according to preset mathematical functions. Change the input and the output becomes different, but the function itself remains the same, static, unable to change itself.

A very bleak vision I think.

I’m sorry, MeDeFe, I think I misunderstood what you wrote, because you misunderstood part of what I wrote.

Outside of what I originally replied, about my analogy not being an exact description of the way things are, there’s this.

I’m not saying the changes God makes in other cells thereby change the choice I made back to what he wanted me to do. I’m saying his changes bring the end result, and other critical points back on track, but my choice has other consequences in the meantime.

Example 1. A missionary org. speaks at my church, and God’s Spirit nudges me to give something, which he intends to benefit someone in Africa. I disobey and keep my money because I am disobeying already and not trusting Him to take care of my needs, so I am feeling stingy and selfish that week. God can bring the funds from some other source to meet that need, but I miss out on a blessing and a growing experience from trusting Him and giving cheerfully as he commands.

Example 2. This is one I have seen many times in my own life and others’. There’s an aspect of my character that needs to change. God decides now is the time to deal with it so he brings it to my attention the easy way: through something I read in the Bible or hear in a sermon, or something else that occurs. I disobey by refusing to face my problem so that I can pray for God to change my heart and begin choosing to act according to the right attitude that he wants me to adopt. Now he brings about circumstances where this character flaw or bad attitude causes me increasing amounts of trouble or embarrassment until I’m willing to face it and deal with it. He may not even need to “change” anything, but you could say that I am already headed for the circumstances, and he wants me to deal with it before I get there. Once again, His end is accomplished in me, but my choice determines how much I have to go through to get there, and there may be things I miss out on from not getting on board earlier.

Hope this helps clear up how with a mind and perspective as great as the God who created the minds of Aristotle, Gallileo, DaVinci, Goethe, DesCartes, Einstein and Hawking, there doesn’t have to be a contradiction between free will and omniscience.

[vtmarik]

Weak Anthropic Principle: "We see the universe the way it is because we exist"

When I saw this, it triggered a question in my head. This could be involved or ridiculous, so try to hear me out. (and jasmine, it will be short)

Coming from an evolutionary point of view requires that we believe that we have evolved for the purpose of survival. Based on that, what leads us to believe that we can possibly know whether or not we know anything? Restated, evolution leads to survival, not truth. Why do we assume we can know truth.

You're backwards, survival leads to evolution, in that the traits that help a species survive pass on and traits that are detrimental to survival eventually vanish from successive breeding with superior genetic stock.

Clearly, I'm arguing the superiority of my epistemology, but I am curious, and the question we are facing is why I (and others like me) believe. But this is a legitimate question on my part, in that I don't know how an atheist can assume to know that anything exists or doesn't exist.

Because "Truth" is not solely the quality of the religious. There are nontheistic philosophies that seek truth as well.

We base our beliefs on our experiences, so if we experience that something exists, then it exists.

Science is about fact, not truth. Facts are statements that can be directly proven or disproven. Truth is when opinion and facts mingle together and become a belief structure.

[luns101]

Mr. Coffee (may I call you that? )

Just read your thread since I've been gone for awhile. I would consider myself one of the Jesus Freaks but I don't carry their signature on my posts. Thanks for being willing to share your doubts and opinions on Jesus Christ. If you have any questions of me I would be happy to discuss them. It seems that others have done a good job already.

Thanks for your comments and look forward to possibly giving some insight on why I believe.

[unriggable]

Mr. Coffee (may I call you that? )

[MeDeFe]

Nice idea, but that still makes us humans nothing more than machines that function according to preset mathematical functions. Change the input and the output becomes different, but the function itself remains the same, static, unable to change itself.

A very bleak vision I think.

I’m sorry, MeDeFe, I think I misunderstood what you wrote, because you misunderstood part of what I wrote.

Outside of what I originally replied, about my analogy not being an exact description of the way things are, there’s this.

I’m not saying the changes God makes in other cells thereby change the choice I made back to what he wanted me to do. I’m saying his changes bring the end result, and other critical points back on track, but my choice has other consequences in the meantime.

[Examples]

Hope this helps clear up how with a mind and perspective as great as the God who created the minds of Aristotle, Gallileo, DaVinci, Goethe, DesCartes, Einstein and Hawking, there doesn’t have to be a contradiction between free will and omniscience.

I reread your original post and I misunderstood you when I read it first, however, the problem I originally pointed out still remains: if god knows what we are going to do before we do it, choice becomes a logical impossibility.

[sam_levi_11]

What? Long replies make you hard? O.o

i thought that lol

[Tyr]

why does this thread keep coming back

[unriggable]

why does this thread keep coming back

Because it's interesting to the curious mind, you don't need to post.

[CoffeeCream]

Mr. Coffee (may I call you that? )

Thanks for your comments and look forward to possibly giving some insight on why I believe.

Yeah, I've been called worse so Mr. Coffee works for me.

I may just take you up on that sometime. Just promise me you won't start speaking in Medieval English like you did in that other topic, ok? You must really like LOST!

[unriggable]

Mr. Coffee (may I call you that? )

Thanks for your comments and look forward to possibly giving some insight on why I believe.

Yeah, I've been called worse so Mr. Coffee works for me.

I may just take you up on that sometime. Just promise me you won't start speaking in Medieval English like you did in that other topic, ok? You must really like LOST!

Actually my thoughts were that he is a flaming homosexual.





He started a lost thread a while back, check it out.