Quote: Next I wanted to know why
you believe God exists, this way I can try to argue against something that I
know is true in your case and your most powerful reason(s) for your
belief.
Glad to hear you are familiar with CS Lewis. However, he doesn't leave other
possibilities open. Those three are the only three choices you have. If Christ
was simply eccentric and believed he was god then he'd fall into category number
two. There are no other choices but Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
Now, for your question. Unlike what some may think about me, my faith in Christ
and the Bible's authority has originated from logic and reason, from
investigating the evidence, and from need and necessity for Him. The Bible tells
us to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind."
That covers everything - from a standpoint of emotion, faith, perseverence, and
reason.
Evidence for God: as I've mentioned there are several arguments - the
cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, and
teleological argument. These can be discussed at great length. I will simply
abbreviate here because honestly, I don't have that much time to go into
each.
Cosmological - reasons from the existence of the cosmos to a Creator: Argument
from...unmoved movers, existence of good things, necessary existence, first
cause, motion, efficient causality, possibility and necessity, gradation
(perfection) of things, first cause of being, producibility, sufficient
reason.j
Ontological - argues from the concept of a Necessary Being to that Being's
existence: This one is very deep and contains so many discussions in the past. There are no specific categories
like the cosmological but instead years of various responses. At the end of all
discussion this argument does prove a necessary
being but by itself does not designate which kind of God (or gods) is
found at the conclusion. Therefore, in order to defend Theism one must go beyond
this argument. But, this argument is good to argue with atheists who believe in
no necessary being.
Teleological - moves from design to a Designer. This one is fun. I believe A.E.
Taylor has presented one of the best arguments to confirm this; however, it is
friggin long. I will post it later.
Moral - argument from a moral law to a Moral Law Giver. I will list two
arguments here, one from Kant (who rejected most arguments for God's existence)
and one from CS Lewis.
Kant
1. The greatest good of all persons is that they have happiness in harmony with
duty.
2. All persons should strive for the greatest good.
3. What persons ought to do, they can do.
4. But persons are not able to realize the greatest good in this life or without
God.
5. Therefore, we must postulate a God and a future life in which the greatest
good can be achieved.
CS Lewis
1.There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a)Moral disagreements would
make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b)All moral criticisms would be
meaningless (e.g., "The Nazis were wrong."). (c)It is unnecessary to
keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d)We would not make
excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the
Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b)Is interested in
our behavior (as moral persons are).
3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a)Otherwise
all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing
our lives for what is not ulitmately right. (b)the source of all good must be
absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
Again, this doesn't even scratch the surface of these four arguments. There are
decades and in some cases centuries of debates included in here.
Now, there are so many reasons why I trust the New Testament. For me, if I can
show that the New Testament I have on my table here is the same one from the
beginning, then I have a big decision to make. If these guys really wrote what I
read then their claims are almost impossible to ignore. Therefore we can look at
the historicity of the New Testament - later post.
One thought, since we can show that the New Testament is in fact accurate and
dates back to the first century, and that these disciples of Christ lived and
died for what they claims, then these guys were either completely crazy, stupid,
or they saw the Truth and were willing to die for it. Noone dies for what they
know to be false. Sure, people have died for something that is false but noone
willingly dies for what they know to be
false. These men never gave up, never weakened, and never quit claiming what
they claimed. I believe it is because they saw, witnessed, heard, felt, touched,
and performed everything they claimed.
Anyway, for me, this type of study (apologetic) is absolutely critical. It is
the basis for the most important decision I ever made. It will stand as proof
that that decision was in fact the most important decision as I will hear "Well done good and faithful
servant."
Quote by Archer79None of the four
proposed replies. I believe in Him because I have seen Him moving in my life,
and in others. ...I worship Him because he is generous, loving, and charitible,
when I am just... ...pathetic. ...I pray to Him because He listens. ...And
replies in ways of incredible intimacy. ...Mericles may not be apparent to all,
but when He moves in grace, His provisions touch you very deep. The four answers
you proposed only scratch the surface of what's really
involved.
Wanted to let you know that I thought this was a great post. RubyDrgOn is so fun
to debate with and I enjoyed your answer.
Again Plunky you are proving yourself to be so entrusting of others to prove
your points without even researching them. Talk about the ultimate example of
blind faith. This is getting pretty damn pathetic.
The argument that I represented wasn't McDowell's but CS Lewis. The site you
referenced, oh how happy you must have been to find something, made a big
distinction between the two.
Second, once again, this website is full of shit. It clearly uses the following
statement to be a truth in order to prove it's point. This statement is false
and can be proven so:
"Jesus claims to be God
Lewis speaks vaguely of "the sort of things Jesus said" and "just
what He said", while McDowell comes right to the point[4]:
Jesus claimed to be God. He did not leave any other options. His claim to be God
must be either true or false and is something that should be given serious
consideration.
Exactly what Jesus claimed is not known. The gospels are the closest thing we
have to an account of his claims, and there is no explicit claim of divinity by Jesus
in the gospels, let alone an unambiguous theological statement of
what precisely it might mean for a man to claim to be God. (Obviously the
Christian church came to think that Jesus was God, though even they had trouble
determining what that meant, as witnessed by centuries of "heresies"
concerning this issue). Much of what is often interpreted as suggesting divinity
comes from the fourth gospel, but this is considered to be of relatively late
authorship (compared to the synoptics) and may reflect theological ideas
developed in the early church or those of the author, and may thus be removed
from the actual claims/sayings of Jesus. This is not to urge a particular
interpretation of John, but to make the point that there is not a clear
consensus on the historical claims of Jesus, or how his words as we have them
should be interpreted in context."
Italics and bold are added by me. I'm sure you're aware that this has been an
old argument that has been refuted over and over again and is clearly false. His
divine claims are all over the place. Once again, if this is a premise to make a
conclusion then the conclusion is false. No reason to quote the verses but I
certainly can show them to you.
Great job. Please note the heavy sarcasism. Once again you've shown you have NO
idea what you're debating about and all you do is quote some website that you
don't even attempt to question. Ha. I laugh at your arguing abilities.
merged: 03-18-2006 ~ 11:22am
I'm going to let the above post stand but I need to ask you to forgive me. My
frustration with your arguments is unnecessary no matter what I feel abou
them.
So, with that said, I apologize. From this point on I will address all posts
without any derogatory comments. They do
absolutely nothing in this type of format - or any other for that matter. I will
address you as if I'm talking to my neighbor and will attempt to provide
necessary evidence with my remarks. However, I will say, not all
"evidence" comes from other sources. All sources should be allowed in
order to get a total picture of what is being discussed.
Again, I allowed you to get under my skin and I expressed it. Won't happen
again.
I haven't had to time to put my post together that you requested but I did have
a quick question - which then leads to a couple more.
Do you believe you have been presented with enough historical evidence to prove
to you that Jesus lived? - ie. That he was a real person.
If so, do you believe him to be the most incredible liar and deceiver? Think
about how great of a liar he'd have to be to create what he created. So, was he
a liar?
Or, do you believe he was so absolutely psychotic with serious mental issues
that he thought he was divine and was able to convince thousands during his
time?
Sorry to post here but I came across this quote of yours and was
shocked:
Quote by RubyDrgOn
...i know you be surprised at wat i have say here but i am Christian...i think
it important to help ppl think of how they belief...i am a missionary for Christ
in Malaysia...most ppl don't know that...makes it
fun...
WHAT!? Are you kidding me? You best be careful friend if you are in fact a
Christian missionary because most, if not all, of your posts do not confirm
Christ - I believe that is a huge mistake since this world is fallen anyway -
doesn't need more help. If anything, it needs us to stand up and speak out.
Quote by alexjohnc3I agree with you
that the contradictions listed on that website appear to be inaccurate, but do
not discredit Infidels.org (The Secular Web)
because of that. I guess you could discredit Jim Meritt, but The Secular Web has
a lot interesting information.
I agree. I certainly cannot claim the whole site is inaccurate when I have not
gone through the whole thing. I have gone through the contradictions but that's
it.
Quote: Although I don't seem to
understand how God can be "good to all" and at the same time
"destroy" people. Punishing your children and "destroying"
them are very different.
I agree with that as well. I was simply trying to show a similarity.
Quote: I'll take your word for it
though because I don't know enough about the Bible to argue that the list of
Biblical contradictions is correct, while you've studied
it.
Have to be careful here. Placing trust in others to this degree is one of the
primary reasons for misrepresentations being perpetrated. I have in fact studied
the contradictions but still, God wants you to know the answers also.
Quote: Next I wanted to know why
you believe God exists, this way I can try to argue against something that I
know is true in your case and your most powerful reason(s) for your
belief.
This seems to be a very simple question but I know you are wanting deeper
explanations than the typically jargon Christians spew. So, if you don't mind,
I'd like to put a little more thought into this so it's better than "off
the top of my head."
I have a quick question for you. Now I'm sure you see my name and you are ready
to dig in. I'd like to ask that you put aside your feelings about me for just a
moment. I honestly have a question - and one that I truly don't have an answer
for nor have I heard one from "your side." I very much respect your
knowledge (at least you've sought out intellectual arguments) but of course I
disagree with the final conclusions on most of your points - as you
know.
First, I'd like to admit something. I copied and printed the Evolution debate
you and I had (all 39 pages of it) and read through it. Basically, if we were in
front of an auditorium actually debating you would have kicked my ass. I was in
fact not concise and not convincing. Mostly because I responed too quickly
without doing a little work first.
Anyway, I noticed this quote by you:
Quote: Since infinity is a
mathematical construct, the term is meaningless in reality. The actual
probability of this event happening leading to suffocation in one half of a
room, is something like 1:1x10^40 or so, in other words, a 1 with 40 zeroes
after it against. It's nowhere near infinity, whatever that may be, but it is
sufficiently improbable enough to warrant the term "never going to
happen", given a few trillion years would have to pass for it to happen
once.
I remembered reading something, I have it here to quote, from an expert on
statistical probability (Dr. James Coppedge) who estimated the "probability
of a single protein molecule being aranged by chance is 1 in 10`161." Such
a number defies imagination.
Dr. Coppedge offers another way to illustrate how much time it would take for
amino acids to randomly assemble into a protein molecule. He envisioned an
amoeba that decided to move the entire universe over the width of the entire
universe (that includes every galaxy, solar system, planet, human, animal, and
object contained in that universe). Because of the size of the amoeba it can
only move objects one atom at a time. Obviously, an absurd and virtually
impossible amount of time. But according to Dr. Coppedge, the amount of time to
do this wouldn't even come close to the amount of time it would take to create
one protein molecule. But even if that molecule was assembled by chance, you
would then need a second molecule, and a third one. Obviously, the chance of
such molecules forming randomly is zero. Yet the evolutionist prefers to place
his/her faith in those kinds of odds rather than risk believing in a Divine
Creator.
So, again, I am not sitting here typing this to say "see, there's proof.
You're wrong." I'm not waiting anxiously to blast back an answer. I truly
am interested in your answer to this information. And no, I didn't just stumble
across this on some website. I've read his work before and after reading your
post I went digging to find the book.
I'm sure you will discredit his credentials but, if so, I don't feel that's
alwasy the right answer. I know he works with the Center for Probability
Research in Biology and I'm sure he's qualified to make such calculations. So,
is this calculation accurate? Again, I'm not looking for a debate that's why I
didn't repost on our previous thread or start a new one - I am seeking to
understand your stance regarding this.
merged: 03-11-2006 ~ 02:54am
Sorry this is really long. I honestly didn't plan for it to be. I just read
something online that is a bit different from the book I quoted. This is a
"paste" from the website. This stuff is over my head how these
calculations happen so I certainly am not claiming to have a grasp on this.
Here's the quote:
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even
with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for
Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations.
Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single
cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single
protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He
computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all
the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids
bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In
computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule
by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is,
the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single
smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis
H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took
thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill
up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that
number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller
than any human cell!"
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of
probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out
of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one
human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature
magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a
tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the
materials therein."
Quote by alexjohnc3
The Bible doesn't define the word omnipotent, does it? It is a word of the
English language (well Latin sort of) and should be used how it is
defined.
The Bible does not specifically define 'omnipotent' but it does repeatedly
describe God's power - and His limits.
Quote: And many Christians believe
that God can have no limits yet at the same time have the limits that the Bible
states. I thought that was your view also at first.
All I know is what the Bible states and that's what I believe to be true. I
don't base my belief off of other Christians but wholly off of the
Bible.
Quote: As I said before many
Christians believe believe that God can do everything except that which it
cannot do, but at the same time it can do that too. It's a meaningless
stance.
You're right, that is a meaningless stance and one I don't agree with. Why?
Because the Bible is not vague. It is very clear.
Quote: Okay, I want to see how
accurate that website is. Thanks for your help.
After reading these verses (Psalms 145:9 and Jeremiah 13:14) it appears we have
a contradiction. The Bible says, God is good to all but then illustrates His
desire to destroy. How could that be? Let's take a deeper look.
First, the verse in Psalms are David's words and the verse in Jeremiah are God's
words actually spoken to the prophet. In order for these to contradict each
other one big assumption has to be made: the assumption that God is good to all
all the time. If we get the context of
the Jeremiah verse we see that God is upset at the great perversion and idolatry
of the Israelites - JER 13:10 This wicked
people, who refuse to listen to My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their
hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to
them.
They have completely turned away from God. Does it mean He is not good anymore?
No. JER 13:15 Listen and give heed, do not be
haughty, for the LORD has spoken. JER 13:16 Give glory to the LORD your God,
before He brings darkness and before your feet stumble. Even in the midst
of their great sin He still wants them to repent and "come back." Like
a father pleading with his children to do the right thing, if they decide to
move forward in their disobedience and defiance- then there are consequences.
It is fair to say that I am good to all my children - I have four. But it is
silly to say that if I discipline or rebuke them then I no longer am good or
seeking good to them or for them or that I don't love them. What happens to the
character of children who never learn or experience discipline? (rhetorical
question) The book of Proverbs is loaded with statements illustrating how
"wisdom" applies to those who accept rebukes and/or discipline - those
who push it away don't grow and prove themselves to be fools. So, in fact, these
verses truly show the consistency in God and His character not the
opposite.
Keep in mind, I'm not a theologian. I don't preach on Sundays, I didn't go to
school for this, but I am a dedicated Christian. Someone like myself can look at
these verses, read the context of the "whole" text not just a verse or
two in order to show it's acceptability.
I have gone through most of the "contradictions" on that site on my
own accord and every single one of them uses the same technique: it pulls one or
two verses out of the text and says, "See. They contradict. Therefore, this
whole thing is bogus." But all you have to do is study the context, the
ancient meaning of the word(s), the cultural aspects then, and put it all
together to show it in fact is not a contradiction.
Let's look at another one: Who is the father of Joseph. This will be a little
long; however, if we can show that even one of these "contradictions"
is false then the whole site is suspicious.
His pedigree, Luke 3:23 Matthew had given us somewhat of this. He goes no higher
than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that
Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are
blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins
with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of
Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that
Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent's head, traces
his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the
father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary. And some suggest that the supply
which our translators all along insert here is not right, and that it should not
be read which, that is, which Joseph was the son of Heli, but which Jesus; he
was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, and he, that is, Jesus, was the son
of Seth, of Adam, of God, Luke 3:38. The difference between the two evangelists
in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at
the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both
in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer
ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in
Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of
Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out
all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation does not depend
upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority
of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to
write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration,
but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among
the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and
in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is
set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it
is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (Luke 3:23), not, as it was supposed, referring
only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est
legea - as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by
which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of
David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at
that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists
needed not to go; had they varied from that, they had not gained their point.
Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it
is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records
of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these
extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were
all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no
more occasion for them. - Matthew Henry
Quote:
I'm sorry, am I incorrect in stating that you believe God has limitless power
and that the Bible says that God is omnipotent? Isn't that what you had said
previously?
No. That's why I told you to read my first post. I even gave you three specific
Bible verses that are evidence to the fact that He does not have limitless power. If I can show that there is
something God cannot do then I can show your point of Him being limitless is
wrong. Here's one (refer to Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:18 or 19) - God
cannot lie. So, I would therefore
disagree with you that God has limitless power.
Unlimited, omnipotency, all-powerful, limitless power, what do you consider to
be the differences between these terms and which do you apply to God? I thought
you were saying that God was not limited, but at the same time limited.
=P
If you look up "omnipotent" in the dictionary the
"unlimited" is included in that definition - typically. However, the
word "omnipotent" does not once appear in the Bible. It is a term
outside of the Bible that has been attached to the character of God.
When a Theist says that God is omnipotent he/she is referring to the fact that
God can do anything except that which contradicts His character - like
lying.
The Bible itself tells us of limitations (once again, as I've shown) therefore
proving this proper view of omnipotence. You can apply your own definition to it
if you want to and base your views off of your definition but your definition is
not accurate Biblically therefore does not truly represent God's character.
Quote by alexjohnc3Hi Kellyo! Could
you explain to me why you think the "could God create a rock so heavy that
it could not lift it" argument does not prove through logic that God is not
omnipotent? Thanks!
Theists claim God is all-powerful. But many nontheists insist this is
impossible. The logic of their argument is:
1. If God were all powerful, then he could do anything
2. And if he could do anything, then God could make a rock so big that he can't
move it.
3. But if God could not move this rock, then he could not do everything.
4. Hence, an all-powerful God that can do anything cannot exist.
This is the argument in question here. If my first explanation was insufficient
then let me try again.
Put in this form, the theist rejects the first premise as an improper definition
of omnipotence. God cannot literally do anything. He can only do what is
possible to do consistent with his being as God. He cannot do what is logically
or actually impossible. God cannot do some things. He cannot cease being God. He
cannot contradict his own nature (refer to Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2; Numbers
23:19). He cannot do what is logically impossible, for example make a square
circle. Likewise, God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift for the
simple reason that anything he can make is finite. Anything that is finite he
can move by his infinite power. If he can make it, he can move it.
Quote by kellyo"To live is Christ. To
die is gain."
nice 1, but I don't agree with this - "He who seeks to save his life shall
lose it, but he who loses it for His sake and the
Gospel�¢?s, and for the
sake of His land, city and inheritance, he shall save his eternal
life"
Paul spoke this, yet it seems so sinister - like you must become a slave to His
will - meaning that is when you'll be saved. What does that aformentioned
apostles statement mean to you? And why is it that slavery seems like the goal
of God?
I just discovered my Guestbook and noticed your post. I appreciate your question
and honestly feel I can answer it.
What it means to me is what Paul meant it to be. You have misinterpretated this
verse. The 'lose you life' part very simply refers to our sinful life. For me, I
grew up in a very "sexual" home. My dad had many affairs and bragged
about his conquests. Can you believe that? Anyway, when I got married I began to
follow suit. After commiting adultery with another woman my life began to change
because I did not want to be like my father. At that point I accepted Christ.
This verse tells me that I have to "lose my life" meaning I have to
let go of that side of me that desires other women. I have to make a choice
everyday to keep my eyes pure, to keep my thoughts in check, to ensure I don't
act out, to pursue that which is good, pure, acceptable, etc. I have to
"lose" that part of me everyday. For those who say Christians are a
bunch of robots are full of crap. We are told to "love the Lord with all
our heart, soul, strength, and mind" and trust me, it takes all of them to
do it. So why do it? You may ask me. Here's my answer: imagine my life if I
simply allowed myself to pursue what I was taught. For one, my wife wouldn't put
up with it again (that took several months of counseling in first place), my
kids would be another product of divorce, my kids would learn why dad left and
potentially do the same thing when they get older, the chance for disease in my
life would greatly increase, the chance for other children outside of marriage
would be more likely, the list goes on. It was the right choice but I have to
choose it every single day and therefore "lose my life."
I believe that answers your second question pertaining to God wanting us to be
slaves. If it that truly were the case then we would be slaves and have no
choice but to believe. We'd be a bunch of robots. Of course, that is not love.
Rape is not love. Forced love is just that, forced. I love my children, but I
can't force them to love me. When they don't like me so much I still love them
and hope that as they get older they will love me again.
What happens to a person that would rather not have existed for any reason? I
understand what you meant by your words, but some people simply lack the
capacity to comprehend or attain your religious wisdom. What can you say or do
to explain that your God exists and is here for their
sake?
First of all, no one lacks the capacity to attain Biblical wisdom - it is for
anyone and everyone who seeks. Now that would be cruel if God actually kept
Himself back from those who seek. It doesn't matter if you're a beggar on the
street or the biggest CEO in the country.
To a person who would rather not have existed - I'd say that any form of life is
better than no life. Comparing life to non-life is not possible. Life is BETTER
than something that never existed at all. I believe that every life God created
is loved by Him. I'm a Christian (obviously) and yes I believe every homosexual,
murderer, adulterer, atheist, Islamist, etc. is loved. It is better to have life
than no life. So comparing a beating heart to a non-thing, or a thing that
doesn't exist is just impossible.
As far as showing that God exists and is here for their (the person who may not
want to exist) sake - I'm an apologetic (one who studies the truth claims of
religions). I can quote fact, theories, evidence, opinions all day long. But,
for me, honestly, it's not about all that stuff. It's what I feel and know to be
true. In the days past when my life absolutely sucked and I thought it would be
better if I were gone - I realized that if God is really there then His promise
is real and He really loves me - just the way I am. Of course He'd want me to
change some things but He'd show me later. Instead of becoming a
"non-being" I decided to give it a shot and dig in. He revealed
Himself and I kept studying and now I believe I can converse with anyone and
show plenty of evidence that the Bible is accurate and true.
I don't know exactly what you're asking this for but if, by chance, you think
your existance is questionable, please reconsider.
Glad to hear you are familiar with CS Lewis. However, he doesn't leave other possibilities open. Those three are the only three choices you have. If Christ was simply eccentric and believed he was god then he'd fall into category number two. There are no other choices but Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
Now, for your question. Unlike what some may think about me, my faith in Christ and the Bible's authority has originated from logic and reason, from investigating the evidence, and from need and necessity for Him. The Bible tells us to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind." That covers everything - from a standpoint of emotion, faith, perseverence, and reason.
Evidence for God: as I've mentioned there are several arguments - the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, and teleological argument. These can be discussed at great length. I will simply abbreviate here because honestly, I don't have that much time to go into each.
Cosmological - reasons from the existence of the cosmos to a Creator: Argument from...unmoved movers, existence of good things, necessary existence, first cause, motion, efficient causality, possibility and necessity, gradation (perfection) of things, first cause of being, producibility, sufficient reason.j
Ontological - argues from the concept of a Necessary Being to that Being's existence: This one is very deep and contains so many discussions in the past. There are no specific categories like the cosmological but instead years of various responses. At the end of all discussion this argument does prove a necessary being but by itself does not designate which kind of God (or gods) is found at the conclusion. Therefore, in order to defend Theism one must go beyond this argument. But, this argument is good to argue with atheists who believe in no necessary being.
Teleological - moves from design to a Designer. This one is fun. I believe A.E. Taylor has presented one of the best arguments to confirm this; however, it is friggin long. I will post it later.
Moral - argument from a moral law to a Moral Law Giver. I will list two arguments here, one from Kant (who rejected most arguments for God's existence) and one from CS Lewis.
Kant
1. The greatest good of all persons is that they have happiness in harmony with duty.
2. All persons should strive for the greatest good.
3. What persons ought to do, they can do.
4. But persons are not able to realize the greatest good in this life or without God.
5. Therefore, we must postulate a God and a future life in which the greatest good can be achieved.
CS Lewis
1.There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a)Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b)All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., "The Nazis were wrong."). (c)It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d)We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b)Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).
3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a)Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ulitmately right. (b)the source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
Again, this doesn't even scratch the surface of these four arguments. There are decades and in some cases centuries of debates included in here.
Now, there are so many reasons why I trust the New Testament. For me, if I can show that the New Testament I have on my table here is the same one from the beginning, then I have a big decision to make. If these guys really wrote what I read then their claims are almost impossible to ignore. Therefore we can look at the historicity of the New Testament - later post.
One thought, since we can show that the New Testament is in fact accurate and dates back to the first century, and that these disciples of Christ lived and died for what they claims, then these guys were either completely crazy, stupid, or they saw the Truth and were willing to die for it. Noone dies for what they know to be false. Sure, people have died for something that is false but noone willingly dies for what they know to be false. These men never gave up, never weakened, and never quit claiming what they claimed. I believe it is because they saw, witnessed, heard, felt, touched, and performed everything they claimed.
Anyway, for me, this type of study (apologetic) is absolutely critical. It is the basis for the most important decision I ever made. It will stand as proof that that decision was in fact the most important decision as I will hear "Well done good and faithful servant."
Wanted to let you know that I thought this was a great post. RubyDrgOn is so fun to debate with and I enjoyed your answer.
Again Plunky you are proving yourself to be so entrusting of others to prove your points without even researching them. Talk about the ultimate example of blind faith. This is getting pretty damn pathetic.
The argument that I represented wasn't McDowell's but CS Lewis. The site you referenced, oh how happy you must have been to find something, made a big distinction between the two.
Second, once again, this website is full of shit. It clearly uses the following statement to be a truth in order to prove it's point. This statement is false and can be proven so:
"Jesus claims to be God
Lewis speaks vaguely of "the sort of things Jesus said" and "just what He said", while McDowell comes right to the point[4]:
Jesus claimed to be God. He did not leave any other options. His claim to be God must be either true or false and is something that should be given serious consideration.
Exactly what Jesus claimed is not known. The gospels are the closest thing we have to an account of his claims, and there is no explicit claim of divinity by Jesus in the gospels, let alone an unambiguous theological statement of what precisely it might mean for a man to claim to be God. (Obviously the Christian church came to think that Jesus was God, though even they had trouble determining what that meant, as witnessed by centuries of "heresies" concerning this issue). Much of what is often interpreted as suggesting divinity comes from the fourth gospel, but this is considered to be of relatively late authorship (compared to the synoptics) and may reflect theological ideas developed in the early church or those of the author, and may thus be removed from the actual claims/sayings of Jesus. This is not to urge a particular interpretation of John, but to make the point that there is not a clear consensus on the historical claims of Jesus, or how his words as we have them should be interpreted in context."
Italics and bold are added by me. I'm sure you're aware that this has been an old argument that has been refuted over and over again and is clearly false. His divine claims are all over the place. Once again, if this is a premise to make a conclusion then the conclusion is false. No reason to quote the verses but I certainly can show them to you.
Great job. Please note the heavy sarcasism. Once again you've shown you have NO idea what you're debating about and all you do is quote some website that you don't even attempt to question. Ha. I laugh at your arguing abilities.
merged: 03-18-2006 ~ 11:22am
I'm going to let the above post stand but I need to ask you to forgive me. My frustration with your arguments is unnecessary no matter what I feel abou them.
So, with that said, I apologize. From this point on I will address all posts without any derogatory comments. They do absolutely nothing in this type of format - or any other for that matter. I will address you as if I'm talking to my neighbor and will attempt to provide necessary evidence with my remarks. However, I will say, not all "evidence" comes from other sources. All sources should be allowed in order to get a total picture of what is being discussed.
Again, I allowed you to get under my skin and I expressed it. Won't happen again.
alexjohn,
I haven't had to time to put my post together that you requested but I did have a quick question - which then leads to a couple more.
Do you believe you have been presented with enough historical evidence to prove to you that Jesus lived? - ie. That he was a real person.
If so, do you believe him to be the most incredible liar and deceiver? Think about how great of a liar he'd have to be to create what he created. So, was he a liar?
Or, do you believe he was so absolutely psychotic with serious mental issues that he thought he was divine and was able to convince thousands during his time?
Or, do you believe He is who He says He is?
RubyDrgOn,
Sorry to post here but I came across this quote of yours and was shocked:
WHAT!? Are you kidding me? You best be careful friend if you are in fact a Christian missionary because most, if not all, of your posts do not confirm Christ - I believe that is a huge mistake since this world is fallen anyway - doesn't need more help. If anything, it needs us to stand up and speak out.
I agree. I certainly cannot claim the whole site is inaccurate when I have not gone through the whole thing. I have gone through the contradictions but that's it.
I agree with that as well. I was simply trying to show a similarity.
Have to be careful here. Placing trust in others to this degree is one of the primary reasons for misrepresentations being perpetrated. I have in fact studied the contradictions but still, God wants you to know the answers also.
This seems to be a very simple question but I know you are wanting deeper explanations than the typically jargon Christians spew. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to put a little more thought into this so it's better than "off the top of my head."
Valdemar,
I have a quick question for you. Now I'm sure you see my name and you are ready to dig in. I'd like to ask that you put aside your feelings about me for just a moment. I honestly have a question - and one that I truly don't have an answer for nor have I heard one from "your side." I very much respect your knowledge (at least you've sought out intellectual arguments) but of course I disagree with the final conclusions on most of your points - as you know.
First, I'd like to admit something. I copied and printed the Evolution debate you and I had (all 39 pages of it) and read through it. Basically, if we were in front of an auditorium actually debating you would have kicked my ass. I was in fact not concise and not convincing. Mostly because I responed too quickly without doing a little work first.
Anyway, I noticed this quote by you:
I remembered reading something, I have it here to quote, from an expert on statistical probability (Dr. James Coppedge) who estimated the "probability of a single protein molecule being aranged by chance is 1 in 10`161." Such a number defies imagination.
Dr. Coppedge offers another way to illustrate how much time it would take for amino acids to randomly assemble into a protein molecule. He envisioned an amoeba that decided to move the entire universe over the width of the entire universe (that includes every galaxy, solar system, planet, human, animal, and object contained in that universe). Because of the size of the amoeba it can only move objects one atom at a time. Obviously, an absurd and virtually impossible amount of time. But according to Dr. Coppedge, the amount of time to do this wouldn't even come close to the amount of time it would take to create one protein molecule. But even if that molecule was assembled by chance, you would then need a second molecule, and a third one. Obviously, the chance of such molecules forming randomly is zero. Yet the evolutionist prefers to place his/her faith in those kinds of odds rather than risk believing in a Divine Creator.
So, again, I am not sitting here typing this to say "see, there's proof. You're wrong." I'm not waiting anxiously to blast back an answer. I truly am interested in your answer to this information. And no, I didn't just stumble across this on some website. I've read his work before and after reading your post I went digging to find the book.
I'm sure you will discredit his credentials but, if so, I don't feel that's alwasy the right answer. I know he works with the Center for Probability Research in Biology and I'm sure he's qualified to make such calculations. So, is this calculation accurate? Again, I'm not looking for a debate that's why I didn't repost on our previous thread or start a new one - I am seeking to understand your stance regarding this.
merged: 03-11-2006 ~ 02:54am
Sorry this is really long. I honestly didn't plan for it to be. I just read something online that is a bit different from the book I quoted. This is a "paste" from the website. This stuff is over my head how these calculations happen so I certainly am not claiming to have a grasp on this. Here's the quote:
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
The Bible does not specifically define 'omnipotent' but it does repeatedly describe God's power - and His limits.
All I know is what the Bible states and that's what I believe to be true. I don't base my belief off of other Christians but wholly off of the Bible.
You're right, that is a meaningless stance and one I don't agree with. Why? Because the Bible is not vague. It is very clear.
After reading these verses (Psalms 145:9 and Jeremiah 13:14) it appears we have a contradiction. The Bible says, God is good to all but then illustrates His desire to destroy. How could that be? Let's take a deeper look.
First, the verse in Psalms are David's words and the verse in Jeremiah are God's words actually spoken to the prophet. In order for these to contradict each other one big assumption has to be made: the assumption that God is good to all all the time. If we get the context of the Jeremiah verse we see that God is upset at the great perversion and idolatry of the Israelites - JER 13:10 This wicked people, who refuse to listen to My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them.
They have completely turned away from God. Does it mean He is not good anymore? No. JER 13:15 Listen and give heed, do not be haughty, for the LORD has spoken. JER 13:16 Give glory to the LORD your God, before He brings darkness and before your feet stumble. Even in the midst of their great sin He still wants them to repent and "come back." Like a father pleading with his children to do the right thing, if they decide to move forward in their disobedience and defiance- then there are consequences.
It is fair to say that I am good to all my children - I have four. But it is silly to say that if I discipline or rebuke them then I no longer am good or seeking good to them or for them or that I don't love them. What happens to the character of children who never learn or experience discipline? (rhetorical question) The book of Proverbs is loaded with statements illustrating how "wisdom" applies to those who accept rebukes and/or discipline - those who push it away don't grow and prove themselves to be fools. So, in fact, these verses truly show the consistency in God and His character not the opposite.
Keep in mind, I'm not a theologian. I don't preach on Sundays, I didn't go to school for this, but I am a dedicated Christian. Someone like myself can look at these verses, read the context of the "whole" text not just a verse or two in order to show it's acceptability.
I have gone through most of the "contradictions" on that site on my own accord and every single one of them uses the same technique: it pulls one or two verses out of the text and says, "See. They contradict. Therefore, this whole thing is bogus." But all you have to do is study the context, the ancient meaning of the word(s), the cultural aspects then, and put it all together to show it in fact is not a contradiction.
Let's look at another one: Who is the father of Joseph. This will be a little long; however, if we can show that even one of these "contradictions" is false then the whole site is suspicious.
His pedigree, Luke 3:23 Matthew had given us somewhat of this. He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent's head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary. And some suggest that the supply which our translators all along insert here is not right, and that it should not be read which, that is, which Joseph was the son of Heli, but which Jesus; he was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, and he, that is, Jesus, was the son of Seth, of Adam, of God, Luke 3:38. The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation does not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (Luke 3:23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est legea - as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them. - Matthew Henry
If you look up "omnipotent" in the dictionary the "unlimited" is included in that definition - typically. However, the word "omnipotent" does not once appear in the Bible. It is a term outside of the Bible that has been attached to the character of God.
When a Theist says that God is omnipotent he/she is referring to the fact that God can do anything except that which contradicts His character - like lying.
The Bible itself tells us of limitations (once again, as I've shown) therefore proving this proper view of omnipotence. You can apply your own definition to it if you want to and base your views off of your definition but your definition is not accurate Biblically therefore does not truly represent God's character.
Theists claim God is all-powerful. But many nontheists insist this is impossible. The logic of their argument is:
1. If God were all powerful, then he could do anything
2. And if he could do anything, then God could make a rock so big that he can't move it.
3. But if God could not move this rock, then he could not do everything.
4. Hence, an all-powerful God that can do anything cannot exist.
This is the argument in question here. If my first explanation was insufficient then let me try again.
Put in this form, the theist rejects the first premise as an improper definition of omnipotence. God cannot literally do anything. He can only do what is possible to do consistent with his being as God. He cannot do what is logically or actually impossible. God cannot do some things. He cannot cease being God. He cannot contradict his own nature (refer to Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19). He cannot do what is logically impossible, for example make a square circle. Likewise, God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift for the simple reason that anything he can make is finite. Anything that is finite he can move by his infinite power. If he can make it, he can move it.
I just discovered my Guestbook and noticed your post. I appreciate your question and honestly feel I can answer it.
What it means to me is what Paul meant it to be. You have misinterpretated this verse. The 'lose you life' part very simply refers to our sinful life. For me, I grew up in a very "sexual" home. My dad had many affairs and bragged about his conquests. Can you believe that? Anyway, when I got married I began to follow suit. After commiting adultery with another woman my life began to change because I did not want to be like my father. At that point I accepted Christ. This verse tells me that I have to "lose my life" meaning I have to let go of that side of me that desires other women. I have to make a choice everyday to keep my eyes pure, to keep my thoughts in check, to ensure I don't act out, to pursue that which is good, pure, acceptable, etc. I have to "lose" that part of me everyday. For those who say Christians are a bunch of robots are full of crap. We are told to "love the Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind" and trust me, it takes all of them to do it. So why do it? You may ask me. Here's my answer: imagine my life if I simply allowed myself to pursue what I was taught. For one, my wife wouldn't put up with it again (that took several months of counseling in first place), my kids would be another product of divorce, my kids would learn why dad left and potentially do the same thing when they get older, the chance for disease in my life would greatly increase, the chance for other children outside of marriage would be more likely, the list goes on. It was the right choice but I have to choose it every single day and therefore "lose my life."
I believe that answers your second question pertaining to God wanting us to be slaves. If it that truly were the case then we would be slaves and have no choice but to believe. We'd be a bunch of robots. Of course, that is not love. Rape is not love. Forced love is just that, forced. I love my children, but I can't force them to love me. When they don't like me so much I still love them and hope that as they get older they will love me again.
merged: 02-09-2006 ~ 11:17am
First of all, no one lacks the capacity to attain Biblical wisdom - it is for anyone and everyone who seeks. Now that would be cruel if God actually kept Himself back from those who seek. It doesn't matter if you're a beggar on the street or the biggest CEO in the country.
To a person who would rather not have existed - I'd say that any form of life is better than no life. Comparing life to non-life is not possible. Life is BETTER than something that never existed at all. I believe that every life God created is loved by Him. I'm a Christian (obviously) and yes I believe every homosexual, murderer, adulterer, atheist, Islamist, etc. is loved. It is better to have life than no life. So comparing a beating heart to a non-thing, or a thing that doesn't exist is just impossible.
As far as showing that God exists and is here for their (the person who may not want to exist) sake - I'm an apologetic (one who studies the truth claims of religions). I can quote fact, theories, evidence, opinions all day long. But, for me, honestly, it's not about all that stuff. It's what I feel and know to be true. In the days past when my life absolutely sucked and I thought it would be better if I were gone - I realized that if God is really there then His promise is real and He really loves me - just the way I am. Of course He'd want me to change some things but He'd show me later. Instead of becoming a "non-being" I decided to give it a shot and dig in. He revealed Himself and I kept studying and now I believe I can converse with anyone and show plenty of evidence that the Bible is accurate and true.
I don't know exactly what you're asking this for but if, by chance, you think your existance is questionable, please reconsider.
I just discovered my Guestbook and noticed your comments. Thanks for the personal post.
All the blessings.
I just discovered my Guestbook. Thank you for your comments. The Truth always prevails.