264 replies to this topic

[Raui]

Yes, however in order for that to happen religion would have to be real. I am basing what I know to be true fact. In science everything is made by something. The way science works something cannot be created out of nothing. You say you use science to support your work, how does something like that support your work ?

[Raui]

Yeah your quite right there with everything you said. Also I can see this debate of ours comming to an end, with no conclusion (which is to be expected ) I'm just wondering what you think about life starting on comets ? I would link you to the article I read on NewScientist however its not loading for me.

[Raui]

Okay well thanks for that debate Josh I quite liked it

[Sida]

The thing i don't get is, people are willing to dedicate their lives to their religion, believing that theirs is the right and only one. I'm more on the scientific side, but I'm always open to the fact that i have no way of knowing for sure.

But, christians spend their life believing there's one God and one only. Indians believe there's 8 (or something?) Gods. Jews believe Jesus hasn't come yet, or that he wasn't anyone special. They can't all be true! Assume something happened in my life that made me believe in God...which one? The single God of Christians? The 8 Gods of Indians? Allah?

In my eyes, there's no logic.

[Sweeney]

Josh, the thing you fail to realise is that all your scientificaly-based studies into Christianity are utterly invalid.
This is because you undertook them with a conclusion already mapped out.
By virtue of this method, your effort were not scientific, and therefore, as I said, invalid.

As for the Big Bang, I believe it was caused by the collision of an infinite number of tachyons.

[Akira]

Could it not also be the person's own misinterpretation of the text that led them to think they need to kill non-believers? As I said, it is a common misconception amongst non-believers that old testament law is still relevant today, this is just one of many examples.

It is a common misconception amongst BELIEVERS as well. A lot of pastors and Christians in this area strongly believe the OT to be relevant today; that's why gay marriage is an issue, in fact.

No.

Good ^-^ I find it funny when people believe that, essentially, a church-legalized pagan holiday is the birthday of Christ. You have got to be one of the smartest Christians that I've talked with in a while o.O

God made the Old Testament as a way of leading His people in the old times. In early times the Israelites had no sort of government or control, God fixed this with the old testament. It was so strict because it was the only thing the Israelites lived by. There were also many, many cults in Canaan and the distinct laws created by God were created to differ His people from the many other cults that lived in the local land. For instance many of the cults back then insisted heavily on immoral sexuality, hence why God had such strict rules regarding sexuality in the Old Testament. What I originally meant to say was that you were holding God accountable for the peoples own mis-interpretations of the Bible.

The only problem is that there were governments and control before the bible was made. We can see that through historical evidence. This book, aside from Islam, is very young when compared to other religions. The OT, although not as young, is certainly not the first. What's interesting is that God didn't lay down the ground rules immediately; he waited until everyone broke his rules before he made them. And yes, I do hold God accountable. As you said, no one can comprehend God. Yet that's exactly what everyone claims to do once they accept God. They claim to know exactly what he wants, and they claim to know who is misinterpreting it. For all you know, God could want innocent people to be slaughtered. That's when they're still good, after all, and maybe he doesn't want them to spoil their future in heaven.

God did not create the texts, man did. Man wanted to do his own thing, so logically he created his own set of rules, thus creating these false texts. As far as biological deaths go, it's something I'm still researching as well. I have a few theories like God uses these diseases for good reasons, but you must understand I am only 16 and have only be studying for about a year or two now.

And make it be known that I am not trying to convert you, I'm only defending my faith.

So, you yourself can proudly state that the Christian book was written by God, but the laws of say...Hinduism are totally false? Without being raised in that culture, with Christianity as your background, can you proudly march up to a Hindu family and tell them all that they will burn in hell because they are reading false texts? Realize that while they had 'false texts', God didn't even bother to give them anything. Is that fair? I'm only 17, but I've spent 5 years researching this.

^-^ Very well then.

I am unaware of any such tests and if you would like to point them out to me feel free.

There aren't any tests, it's consider "immoral". -whines- Honestly, I don't care if it's immoral, so long as it gets a bloody point across o.O Shut up Falwell...oh wait, he's dead.

My eyes are already burning, it's been so long since I have done a debate like this I'm not used to so much reading at one time I don't want to sound offensive, but I have been doing studies recently on people's attitudes and their encounters with Christianity. From your first post I already concluded that you have had some bad experiences with Christianity before, so I think I am on the right track.

Haha....yeah. I've had a few distinct problems with Christianity from the start. Living in a KKKristian community, if you follow.

[Melchoire]

No, but the evidence of Christianity versus the other religions to me is overwhelming and for me to choose to follow another religion would be illogical to me.

Care to elaborate on that?

If an alien civilization came to Earth, the first thing I would do is look at any religious background they might have. I would of course make immediate adjustments to my beliefs, and most likely rule out Christianity, but I don't believe that will ever happen anyways.

What of you faith then?

Yes, however in order for that to happen religion would have to be real. I am basing what I know to be true fact. In science everything is made by something. The way science works something cannot be created out of nothing. You say you use science to support your work, how does something like that support your work ?

Like I said before: something can be created from nothing (remember the article)

[nox]

What of you faith then?

faith under a false religon is meaningless

[Melchoire]

faith under a false religon is meaningless

I'm just saying if he has so much faith in Christianity now; it would be pretty weird to give it up if some alien civilization appeared.

[Ives]

Christianity has just as much proof against it as Islam or Judaism. There are certainly contradictions in the bible (IE saying God has no sons then saying Adam is a son of god, people say it isnt capitalised therefore its just saying Adam is a "child" or creation of God, yet semitic languages do not have capitalisation), maybe not enough to disprove a strong belief in it. I cant remember where I placed my copy of god is not Great by Hitchens, but he has a lot to suggest that Christianity has its share of mysticist beliefs, as do Penn & Teller.

I also believe that Atheists are weak when it comes to their beliefs, most anyways. Its easy to say that you dont believe in God because theres no proof, but its another to believe There Is No God.

[Melchoire]

Why? If some alien civilization appeared than most of the Bible would be suddenly invalid, and why put faith in something that is suddenly so invalid? Let's be reasonable here...

How would you feel if you spent your entire life having faith in Jesus. Believing that he was god, that he was great, that he died for "our" sins, that he got resurrected and etc. Then all of the sudden some aliens prove that God doesn't exist. Obviously you would believe in them but then you just spent your whole life living a lie.

[Sweeney]

You misunderstand me, Josh.
The whole point is that you look for scientific reasoning within Christianity, which is an abomination of the scientific method.

Science is taking the evidence, and forming a conclusion. What you are doing, is taking the conclusion, and fitting the evidence to it.

[Melchoire]

How does this have to do anything with this debate? Honestly, you seem to be straying into emotion rather than facts...

I'm just pointing out the flaw in the statements you've made: is that what this is about? Btw, did you watch that video Bruce posted? Might be interested in it

Oh and earlier you mentioned that from the evidence you've researched you find it overwhelming for Christianity. Can you tell me what that evidence is?

[Sweeney]

How can you say my mind isn't open?
I'm perfectly ready to consider the implications of wormhole physics, multiple dimensions, string and superstring theories and so on.

I think, again, you are misunderstanding me.
Let's say I decide that bacteria spontaneously generate on rotting food. I can produce countless studies that "prove" it to be the case, and countless more that fail to rule it out. But because I have already decided the outcome, I will be unable to look critically at the studies, to find their flaws, or even to provide alternate explanations.
This is a fallacy of the scientific method. Exactly as you have done to find proof of the existence of God.

[Melchoire]

You need to be more clear. So far I have not seen you point any of these "flaws" out but merely ask me pointless questions about aliens.

And there is too much evidence to just put it all in one post. You need to be specific.

Well if you try to use fact to find in favor Christianity you're in for a dead end. But ok lets be specific. Do you have any evidence that Jesus did infact heal people and bring Lazarus from the dead? Ummm and how about the whole Genesis book; how god created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th. I don't know just give me some examples.

[Sweeney]

Here's the problem. How can you sit and judge me and say that no matter what I instantly think God must exist? As long as you say that, then yes my studies will always be impossible. I mean think about this. It's either I am on the side of God, or the side of science, according to you there is no middle, which is illogical. You assume that it is impossible for one to measure evidence from two stories without being biased to one. According to you I should just give up all my studies because YOU say I will ALWAYS be biased towards God. Can you please explain the logic in this?

In order to provide scientific evidence for anything, you must be on the "side" of science, or it is rendered invalid by its very nature.
There is no way to rule out every explanation for existence but God, because the very idea of God is unfalsifiable, and therefore an inapplicable scientific concept.

I am not talking about science versus God. I am talking about God in terms of science.
And as I said, it's not possible to do so with any validity.

[Sweeney]

I'm getting confused here. When I do my studies I AM on the "side" of science. What I am trying to say is that just because I am on the "side" of science does not instantly rule out Christianity as being plausible, or else my studies would be futile. I am not trying to explain the nature of God via science, indeed it is impossible. Merely I am using science to reveal the world and try to understand and comprehend the possibility of it being created by a superior being/force.

But you can't... because God isn't a scientifically valid concept.

[Sweeney]

Ugh, did you even read my post? I said that it is impossible to explain God's nature via science. I am simply looking at our universe in a scientific position and then weighing the evidence of the possibility of it being created by a superior being/force. How many times must I say this? It is not illogical to use proportions and math to come to a logical conclusion of how exactly our universe was started.

No, but you can't use scientific evidence to draw a scientifically invalid conclusion.

It's like me saying one plus two equals three, and therefore, apple.

[Sweeney]

I understand what you're saying, but might I ask how then I am supposed to provide evidence for my beliefs? Simply because one claims it scientifically impossible to support any possible evidence for the existence of God, that He simply must not exist?

Not at all, you're entitled to believe what you wish.
The simple fact is, that you cannot provide scientific evidence to back it up.

[Sweeney]

Then it's fair to say that any scientific evidence that may suggest a certain thing is therefor instantly invalid because it would be otherwise impossible at this time to make a valid scientific conclusion. I guess that rules Evolution out.

Not really, because evolution is a valid scientific concept, unlike God.

[Sweeney]

Put it this way. Evolution is not a fact. God is not a fact. Science can be used to suggest the concept of evolution. Science can be used to suggest the existence of a superior being. Can you explain to me why science cannot suggest the existence of a superior being? I'm not saying `prove` it, but merely suggest it.

Because it can't be disproven.

[Sweeney]

I am confused, can you elaborate? What cannot be disproven?

The existence of a God cannot be disproven.
Evolution can be. It hasn't, but it is possible.

That's the difference.

[Sweeney]

How do you know it can't be disproven?

How do you disprove the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, intelligent being?
It's impossible.

[Sweeney]

Obviously find something that contradicts the nature of that being.

And to do that, the precise nature of the being must be known.
Which is impossible.

[Sweeney]

Not if the being, like the Christian God, has described His nature.

You yourself have said multiple times in this thread that we cannot understand God.
Yet when I bend the point to my purpose, it instantly becomes falsehood.