Originally posted by 667joeJesus did not require all His followers to sell all their belongings. He told ONE person to do that--the rich young ruler, and that was in a parable. Christians know this.
Dear Jaywill,
My job is to get people to think. You said every thing must have a cause then immediately say god did not have a cause. I'm sure you see my problem with your statement. My position is at least consistent.
Jesus( whose real name was Joshua of Nazarith) was a very wise and pro social human being, but certainly not a god. If you really w ...[text shortened]... ell all your belongings and donate them to charity. (You do want to go to heaven don't you?)
[qs]==========================================
Using your logic, Jesus must not have the qualities in full of a deity because he came into existence 2000 years ago and therefore has not always been in existence, and therefore did have a cause.
===========================================[/b]
You are partialy right. But not fully so.
The man Jesus was born a man. And man is a item of God's creation. However incarnation means that God became a man. So we believe Christ is the union of God and man.
Christ is the mingling of God and man, of divinity and humanity.
This is important because Christ exemplifies the kind of relationship God wants with man. That is not simply to be his Creator, or object of worship, or Master, but to be man's very life. That is to cloth Himself in humanity and live a united and mingled life with humanity.
Christ is God-Man.
==================================
Science, again has yet to figure out what came before the big bang. One theory is a big crunch of a previous universe led to the big bang.This universe could also end up in a big crunch.
========================================
Let them continue to study. I am 100% all for further scientific study. However, I don't see how it can make any difference to the logical conclusion that an Uncaused and all powerful Cause some of us call God is the ultimate source of the being of the creation.
This one became a man. If the science KNOW HOW was converted to MORAL KNOW HOW such that the two things were the same thing expressed in different forms (like E = MC2 ) I am sure that that MORAL Being would be expressed in history as Jesus Christ.
The scientific know how expressed in terms of moral and spiritual reality finds its most likely manifestation in the man Jesus Christ. That is what I believe.
==================================
We had a time when religion ruled the world. It's called the Dark Ages!
========================================
I agree. However, God is not a religion. God is a living Person.
One strong characteristic of the Dark Ages was that the Bible was locked away so that the common man could not read it. Only the clerical class had access to it.
The end of the Dark Ages and the Age of Enlightenment occured simultaneously with the Bible being freed from its Catholic prison and released into he hands of the common people.
Contrary to your view the availability of the Bible played an important part in ending the Dark Ages.
====================================
In those days, religion burned people at the stake for saying the earth traveled around the sun.
======================================
Many more people were burned at the stake for confessing a belief in Jesus. The locking away of the Bible coincided with the persecution of those who had a vital and intimate relationship with a living Jesus.
The man who translated the Bible from Latin to English for the common people, William Tyndale, was burnt at the stake.
His last words "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." I believe that was the quote or the essence of his cry as he burned.
Have you ever heard of the Reformation? Have you read about the monk Luther who nailed 90 thesis on the front door of the Cathedral Protesting the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church.
I have to go now. However you are shifting the argument from the existence of God to the problems of religion.
Are you suggesting that if God were real every spiritual person would be instantly mature and there would never be any problems?
This is like assuming that every one who learn to play chess was a Grand Master immediatly. I look for mature examples of Christians to follow. I do not hunt for people who will discourage my faith. I look for people who will encourage my faith.
Just like you look for people who play chess well or who are successful in science. Why should I not pay more attention to those who are successful as disciples of Jesus?
I have to go now. But all the problems with religion do not make God not exist.
=======================================
Religion advised not getting the small pox vaccination because it would thwart the will of god. There are some religious people today who won't seek medical care for their children and will actually let their children die as a show of faith.
==================================
While you are considering history recall also other things. Lewis Pasteur was a Thiest, I think a Christian. And Pastuer gave us Milk Pasturization.
Galaleo was not an atheist. And others can contribute other theists or Christians who contributed to medical or scientific advancement of civilization.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI was told when I was young that Jesus did tell all his disciples to give up their belongings and follow him. Now I fully admit that I do not know of any verses to back that up.
Jesus did not require all His followers to sell all their belongings. He told ONE person to do that--the rich young ruler, and that was in a parable.
However I am almost certain that there is a verse which says something about how it is practically impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. Something about a camel and a needle.
Christians know this.
Yes Christians have a remarkable ability to ignore any verse that does not agree with their current lifestyle.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by PinkFloyd"So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions." Luke 14:33.
Jesus did not require all His followers to sell all their belongings. He told ONE person to do that--the rich young ruler, and that was in a parable. Christians know this.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI did not understand it fully but intend to read through it again.
Jaywill
Did you read and understand my last argument? I think it was one of my better ones.
I would really like to hear your thoughts of it. 🙂 🙂
But my initial reaction is this:
As long as you are talking about probability you are assuming an ordered universe. An ordered universe is evidence for an Orderer.
So an appeal to probability to deny the existence of God is self defeating.
Originally posted by jaywill“…As long as you are talking about probability you are assuming an ordered universe….”
I did not understand it fully but intend to read through it again.
But my initial reaction is this:
As long as you are talking about [b]probability you are assuming an ordered universe. An ordered universe is evidence for an Orderer.
So an appeal to probability to deny the existence of God is self defeating.[/b]
How does one logically follow from the other? I would agree that there is ordered in the universe but that cannot be deduced from merely “talking about probability“. One has nothing to do with the other.
“…An ordered universe is evidence for an Orderer. ….”
No it isn’t! the laws of physics is what gives order to the universe and, given the fact that the laws of physics explains all of this order, no other explanation is required to explain that order let alone the unproven existence of an “orderer” by which I assume you mean a powerful conscious entirety you call “god“
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton========================================
[b]“…As long as you are talking about probability you are assuming an ordered universe….”
How does one logically follow from the other? I would agree that there is ordered in the universe but that cannot be deduced from merely “talking about probability“. One has nothing to do with the other.
“…An ordered universe is evidence for an Ord ...[text shortened]... xistence of an “orderer” by which I assume you mean a powerful conscious entirety you call “god“
How does one logically follow from the other? I would agree that there is ordered in the universe but that cannot be deduced from merely “talking about probability“. One has nothing to do with the other.
=======================================
Order in the universe can also be called Design in the universe. Talk of Probability attests to Order which means Design.
Design suggests a Designing Agent. That Designing Agent is the Ultimate Designing Agent - very probably God.
===================================
“…An ordered universe is evidence for an Orderer. ….”
No it isn’t! the laws of physics is what gives order to the universe and, given the fact that the laws of physics explains all of this order, no other explanation is required to explain that order let alone the unproven existence of an “orderer” by which I assume you mean a powerful conscious entirety you call “god“
=====================================
Exponents of the Big Bang argue that at the most extreme fractions of a second in the Big Bang the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Then you have neither an eternal universe or eternal laws of physics. As there was a Cause of the universe there also then must be a Cause of the laws of physics come into existence.
I see God as the Law Giver responsible for the laws of physics. This would also be a part of the ordered universe which is the designed universe.
Originally posted by jaywillThis is why theists and scientists can never understand each other. The theists talks with the assumption that his listener is wearing a decoder ring.
Order in the universe can also be called Design
Order cannot be equated to design, so you must be talking in code. Would you care to translate what you are trying to say into plain English?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree. I have noticed on many occasions he says “X” means “Y” when, in everyday plain English, “X” does not mean “Y“. “Order” does not mean “design”; “talking about probability” does not mean “implying order” etc.
This is why theists and scientists can never understand each other. The theists talks with the assumption that his listener is wearing a decoder ring.
Order cannot be equated to design, so you must be talking in code. Would you care to translate what you are trying to say into plain English?
Originally posted by jaywill…Exponents of the Big Bang argue that at the most extreme fractions of a second in the Big Bang the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Then you have neither an eternal universe or eternal laws of physics. As there was a Cause of the universe there also then must be a Cause of the laws of physics come into existence.….
[b]========================================
How does one logically follow from the other? I would agree that there is ordered in the universe but that cannot be deduced from merely “talking about probability“. One has nothing to do with the other.
=======================================
Order in the universe can also be called Design in t ...[text shortened]... ws of physics. This would also be a part of the ordered universe which is the designed universe.[/b]
Assuming there was a “caused” for the laws of physics (not everything has a cause! for example, according to quantum mechanics, there are random events at the subatomic level and any particular outcome of those events has no “cause&rdquo😉 , what is your premise that what caused the laws of physics must have been a “god” as opposed to being a physical process?
Also, if most physicists are correct about the laws of physics being “created” at the big bang, those laws of physics could have been created out of quantum randomness in which case, there is no “cause” for the way the laws of physics ended up.
Originally posted by jaywillYou misunderstand what scientists are saying. Its rather like the way Newtonian physics 'doesn't apply' at near light speeds and Einstein's relativity 'doesn't apply' at very small scales. Quantum mechanics might not apply very close to a singularity.
Exponents of the Big Bang argue that at the [b]most extreme fractions of a second in the Big Bang the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Then you have neither an eternal universe or eternal laws of physics. As there was a Cause of the universe there also then must be a Cause of the laws of physics come into existence.[/b]
That doesn't mean that there are no laws. It simply means that our model of the laws cannot be used in that instance as our model is inaccurate and in that instance the inaccuracy is big enough to render the model unusable.
One very very very important point you (and most creationists) have missed is that 'cause' itself is a law. If 'cause' does not apply to the big bang, then your whole argument goes out the window. If the laws were created by God then how did he 'create' 'cause'? And which god are you going to invoke as the creator of the laws that govern God?
Of course you will invoke the old "well the problem doesn't apply to my God". In other words you claim there is a problem, and falsely claim to have solved it by inventing an entity for which the problem is not a problem.
=======================================
Assuming there was a “caused” for the laws of physics (not everything has a cause! for example, according to quantum mechanics, there are random events at the subatomic level and any particular outcome of those events has no “cause&rdquo😉 , ========================================
The new particle smasher that is being built on the Swiss and French border intends to make discoveries on a subatomic levels.
I assume that since milions are being spent on this huge atom splitter, surely, there are more exiting causes to explore on a lower lever than we have ever known.
What appears to be random popping in and out of existence on a quantum level may very well turn out to be better understood as to causes.
========================================
what is your premise that what caused the laws of physics must have been a “god” as opposed to being a physical process?
=========================================
I suspect the creative act of a loving God Who has fine tuned the universe for the existence of man. The Bible speaks of all things being created for God's purpose. And man is in the center of that purpose for God became a man in Jesus Christ.
Our sun is just the right age to support life.
Our distance from the sun is just the right distance to support life.
Our rotation rate is just the right rotation rate to support life.
The shape of our galaxy is just the right shape for a planet like ours to have formed.
Even the size of the other planets in the solar system, like Jupitar and Saturn directly effect the possibility of life being sustained on earth.
In so many instances if the paramaters were a little more this way or a little less that way, life would not be sustainable on our planet.
Astronomer Huge Scott has written much on this in his book The Creator and the Cosmos. Pick yourself up a copy and read it.
====================================
Also, if most physicists are correct about the laws of physics being “created” at the big bang, those laws of physics could have been created out of quantum randomness in which case, there is no “cause” for the way the laws of physics ended up.
======================================
As I said, what you today regard as "quantum randomness" may be causes and effects simply not yet well understood. Obviously they are putting in millions of not billions of dollars to discover causes on the lowest level possible.
I will be back to discuss this further. Right now I have to provide some transpertation.