Why don't christians know more?

[articulett]

Three gods for one sale: Jr., Spooky, and Big Daddy.

The God Trifecta--ah...the mystery of religion.

 

[kurious_kathy]

OK, I get it now. You're an atheist, and God doesn't exist and the Holy Spirit is Spooky. Thanks! Nice one!

-Elliot

Hi Elliott, Looks like you've been having a great conversation going here. I just thought of this after reading a bit about what you just said.

To an atheist God is out of sight so therefore He is out of mind, but to those of us who believe in God and know Him through Jesus He is never off our minds so therfore never out of sight. Food for thought!

 

[Kimpatsu]

To an atheist God is out of sight so therefore He is out of mind, but to those of us who believe in God and know Him through Jesus He is never off our minds so therfore never out of sight. Food for thought!

Wrong, Kathy. It's a question of zero evidence means no gods exist. All a Xian can claim about god's existence is they believe it; they can offer no evidence. And why the Xian god in particular? Why not Shiva or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Ossai]

Ga’aak, I though kurious_kathy had gone away. Are we going to have to scr.., eh um, sacrifice another symbolic virgin ? Any volunteers?

 

[Freethinker]

To an atheist God is out of sight ...

No, he's imaginary like Santa Claus. We stopped believing in both when we grew up.

 

[Genesius]

Wrong, Kathy. It's a question of zero evidence means no gods exist.

[minor nitpick]
"Zero evidence" means we have no evidence to support the existence of god. It does not mean "no gods exist". Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
[/minor nitpick]

 

[bruto]

Hi Elliott, Looks like you've been having a great conversation going here. I just thought of this after reading a bit about what you just said.

To an atheist God is out of sight so therefore He is out of mind, but to those of us who believe in God and know Him through Jesus He is never off our minds so therfore never out of sight. Food for thought!

Actually it seems God, as a subject at least, if not an actual being, is very much on the minds of atheists. Given the cultural and educational starting point for most people in the parts of the world thought of as Christian and Muslim at least, to be or to become an atheist requires a considerable investment of thought and even a certain amount of courage. Even if you believe the conclusion to be entirely wrong, it's more real thought than many theists invest in the subject.

 

[Kimpatsu]

[minor nitpick]
"Zero evidence" means we have no evidence to support the existence of god. It does not mean "no gods exist". Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
[/minor nitpick]

If there is zero evidence after 14.5 billion years, it is reasonable to adopt the position that no gods exist. I have written on this before; it's a question of assigning probability values. The chances of my winning the lottery jackpot are 40 billion to one. The chances of a singing teapot on Mars are even smaller. And the likelihood of the existence of god is even smaller than that--so vanishingly small, in fact, that it is entirely reasonable to take that absence of evidence as demonstrating that no gods exist.

 

[Genesius]

If there is zero evidence after 14.5 billion years, it is reasonable to adopt the position that no gods exist. I have written on this before; it's a question of assigning probability values. The chances of my winning the lottery jackpot are 40 billion to one. The chances of a singing teapot on Mars are even smaller. And the likelihood of the existence of god is even smaller than that--so vanishingly small, in fact, that it is entirely reasonable to take that absence of evidence as demonstrating that no gods exist.

Care to explain how you calculated the probability of the existence of God? Given the lack of hard evidence, your variables must have more leeway than the Drake Equation.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Care to explain how you calculated the probability of the existence of God? Given the lack of hard evidence, your variables must have more leeway than the Drake Equation.

The more complex or sophisticated an entity, the less likely its existence. God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so his existence is infinitely unlikely. QED.

 

[Genesius]

The more complex or sophisticated an entity, the less likely its existence.

So humans are less likely to exist than viruses?

God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so his existence is infinitely unlikely. QED.

I think you still need to prove your inital assertion. . .

Also, not all religions require an infinitely powerful god. I've had discussions with a few folks here who believe that an "omnipotent" god is still limited by what is logically possible (i.e. the "can god make a rock so big even he can't lift it" paradox).

 

[davefoc]

Elliotfc wrote:

Most Christians agree that you need *both*. Some Christians side more with grace, but clearly express that good works are the necessary result or corrollary of grace. Catholics do *not* believe that good works can get you into heaven, as this implies that *we* are the arbiter and source of our salvation. Catholics do place a premium on good works as corporal acts of mercy, and we do believe that they can be "assigned" to specific things like souls suffering in purgatory, and we do belivee that God will recognize our good deeds (the bad deeds too).

This is slightly off the topic of the thread but I thought it might be interesting to point out that this discussion seems to be a very old one within Chritianity.

Amongst secular scholars there is a general consensus that the relgiion of Paul and the relgion of the Jewish Christians (led originally by James, the probable brother of Jesus, after the death of Jesus) are significantly different. The most significant difference is whether the Jewish relgiious laws on food and circumcision needed to be followed as part of a Jesus based religion. But a second issue that seems like it might have separated the theology of Paul from the theology of the early Jewish Christians was this issue of whether faith in Jesus was enough to get into heaven or whether good works were required also.

Paul seems to have come down on the side that faith in Jesus was enough. James seems to have felt that good works were required also. From this site:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

Paul teaches that the gift of salvation through grace occurs APART FROM any behavioral requirement: Romans 3:28 : "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW."
Paul reiterates this position in: Romans 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5 -- yet no other Bible writer ever makes this point of stating that salvation occurs apart from or separate from works or deeds, which Paul not only states, but reiterates so emphatically.
Paul is specifically rebutted by the later writing of James (brother of Jesus) who offers one of the most striking and dramatic direct contradictions in James 2:24. Here he chooses language and syntactical structures which specifically contradicts Paul's wording in Romans 3:28 in both content and construction:

This might not have been the bst site to link to on this. But I have read similar comments on several sites and I think this writing represents a consensus view on this.


I was wondering if any of the Christians that are partaking in this discussion would like to comment on the general secular scholarly view that the relgion of Jesus and the religion of Paul were quite different with Paul's theology for the most part being the basis of what would become Christianity. The Jewish Christians, whose religious beliefs might have been most influenced by Jesus, hung on for awhile after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but after that time their numbers declined as they were squeezed out by Judaism that excluded them from the synagogs in about 85AD and by the gentile Christians who accused them of heresy by attempting to Judaize Christianity.

 

[drkitten]

So humans are less likely to exist than viruses?

Given the evolutionary history of life on earth, this seems a reasonable conclusion.

Viruses have been around for as long as there have been cells.

Humans have been around a million years or so, tops.

 

[Genesius]

Given the evolutionary history of life on earth, this seems a reasonable conclusion.

Viruses have been around for as long as there have been cells.

Humans have been around a million years or so, tops.

That would be evidence that it takes longer to evolve a more complex creature than a simple one. Not sure if it says anything about the likelihood of the existence of either.

 

[elliotfc]

Hi Elliott, Looks like you've been having a great conversation going here. I just thought of this after reading a bit about what you just said.

To an atheist God is out of sight so therefore He is out of mind, but to those of us who believe in God and know Him through Jesus He is never off our minds so therfore never out of sight. Food for thought!

Heya Kathy!

I find that atheists think about God ALOT so I disagree with your premise.

I think 1 Corinthians 2:9-14 sums it up well, and verse 14 rightly states how the estimation of the "natural person" for spiritual matters.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Wrong, Kathy. It's a question of zero evidence means no gods exist.

I disagree because evidence is an assigned label, things are not inherently evidence, and if no people exist, evidence would be irrelevant.

Things that were not considered to be "evidence" in the past are considered to be evidence today. Existence is not dependent on evidence, and the lack thereof is not necessarily indicative of it's objective non-existence.

All a Xian can claim about god's existence is they believe it; they can offer no evidence.

No, we offer biblical verses which are said, by you, to *not* be evidence. Unless they actually are, but I don't know if you're capable of being open-minded about that possibility.

And why the Xian god in particular? Why not Shiva or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Good questions. You brought them up...wanna fill us in? For example, I've never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster before, what do you know about it?

-Elliot

 

[drkitten]

That would be evidence that it takes longer to evolve a more complex creature than a simple one. Not sure if it says anything about the likelihood of the existence of either.

I don't think you can divide the line that finely. Among other things, it also shows that the conditions under which viruses can evolve are broader than the conditions under which humans can, which in turn implies that viruses are more likely.

 

[elliotfc]

If there is zero evidence after 14.5 billion years, it is reasonable to adopt the position that no gods exist.

If I thought there was zero evidence I'd agree with you, and, related to that, I think that in accepting a lack of evidence such a postition is quite reasonable. Meaning I think your conclusion is reasonable given the accepted premise, which is certainly not universally accepted, therefore internal logic leads to reasonability.

I have written on this before; it's a question of assigning probability values. The chances of my winning the lottery jackpot are 40 billion to one. The chances of a singing teapot on Mars are even smaller.

But people actually *win* the lottery jackpot.

Has there *ever* been a singing teapot on Mars?

And the likelihood of the existence of god is even smaller than that--so vanishingly small, in fact, that it is entirely reasonable to take that absence of evidence as demonstrating that no gods exist.

I don't know how a probability could be calculated. Care to share?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The more complex or sophisticated an entity, the less likely its existence. God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so his existence is infinitely unlikely. QED.

I'd agree with this if I were a materialist. Materialists believe in a chain from the simple to the complex. However, if an entity is independent of that chain, the probability argument is irrelevant.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I was wondering if any of the Christians that are partaking in this discussion would like to comment on the general secular scholarly view that the relgion of Jesus and the religion of Paul were quite different with Paul's theology for the most part being the basis of what would become Christianity. The Jewish Christians, whose religious beliefs might have been most influenced by Jesus, hung on for awhile after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but after that time their numbers declined as they were squeezed out by Judaism that excluded them from the synagogs in about 85AD and by the gentile Christians who accused them of heresy by attempting to Judaize Christianity.

This website resonates with me. I don't know if you are correct when you say "general secular scholarly view", but I'm not equipped to either verify or disagree with that statement.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul&James.htm

-Elliot