Faith-Based Apologetics

[Patriot]

I've been reading this forum for a while and have decided to try my hand at defending my faith. Many Christians have stumbled on this forum as apologetics, most recently and notably Southstar. I'm sorry to hear this, but it is a personal choice. I continue to pray for him and others who have stumbled. However, I have a seemingly new outlook on things. I will be quoting the Bible, but I am quite open-minded. Please bear with me.

This is not a new idea but, logic cannot explain God. It's in the Bible, as many of us are aware. But furthermore, those that try to explain their belief in God as logical seemingly contradict their own belief. Faith is the basis of belief in Christianity, as many 'religions' claim. Faith is what keeps Christians going, not pure rationality. Take these well-known verses:

Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

The reason that I continue my faith-based apology to those who are not of Christian faith is the covenant I have with God, that Jesus fufilled. Not Mithra, nor Muhammad. Jesus. I have full faith in my Lord, his Son, and his Spirit, not the imitations that Satan has conjured to lure those in the faith away. Faith of a mustard seed.

Jesus Walks,

Patriot

 

[robtex]

Nice to meet you. I hope your journey on these forums are a fullfilling one. Just one footnote if I can, Muhammad is considered mortal by the Islamic religion. He was prophet as opposed to a savior.

Your statement is strong that religion is strengthen in and by faith as are all religions but I would like to contend that geography and culturalization plays a big part of this.

For instance, being born here in America and not being of middle eastern descent puts heavy odds on one being a Christian. Being born in India, where 80 % plus of the population is hindu puts big odds on hinduism. Being born in Japan puts the odds on Shintoism, taoism and buddism. Being in Iran puts really heavy odds on the muslim religion.

The religions of the world are very well segregated in concentrated areas in the world. Having said that I want to point out while faith is central religion it is not alone but nutured by the culture one is born into making rationalization in part pracitical in deciding ones faith.

I acknoweding that:

1) christianity is the most popular religion in the world
2) christanity exists in almost every country but is not the major religion of many countires

are you a second generation Christian or beyond, and if so or not, if you were born in say Egypt (who are reguarly seen as a bad guy in the old testiment) or in Japan would you instead have been drawn to the major religions of those countries just as surely as much of their population is?

 

[§outh§tar]

I've been reading this forum for a while and have decided to try my hand at defending my faith. Many Christians have stumbled on this forum as apologetics, most recently and notably Southstar. I'm sorry to hear this, but it is a personal choice. I continue to pray for him and others who have stumbled. However, I have a seemingly new outlook on things. I will be quoting the Bible, but I am quite open-minded. Please bear with me.

This is not a new idea but, logic cannot explain God. It's in the Bible, as many of us are aware. But furthermore, those that try to explain their belief in God as logical seemingly contradict their own belief. Faith is the basis of belief in Christianity, as many 'religions' claim. Faith is what keeps Christians going, not pure rationality. Take these well-known verses:

Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

The reason that I continue my faith-based apology to those who are not of Christian faith is the covenant I have with God, that Jesus fufilled. Not Mithra, nor Muhammad. Jesus. I have full faith in my Lord, his Son, and his Spirit, not the imitations that Satan has conjured to lure those in the faith away. Faith of a mustard seed.

Jesus Walks,

Patriot

Well at least you didn't call me a cadet in Satan's army like some other "Christian" on this forum I know...

I don't know whether or not you have been on this very long but I'll tell you a little bit about my "history":

I was formerly like you. More zealous and fanatic than you would believe, actually. I quoted the Bible for everything and managed to interpret the words to fit my doctrine and suit my arguments. And then it all changed.

No one is claiming that logic or mere rationale can "explain" God. That would be foolishness. What we contest is when every other religions "God" is the "one true God" and all others are, as you say, "imitations that Satan has conjured". Of course, the reasonable approach would be to 'sift' through the religions to discover which one is truthful. If you have never studied any other religion in your life and yet you swear the Christian God is the one true God, you practice Pascal's Wager.

I would like for you to establish some things for me:
1) What is you reason for having faith in the messages of the Bible?
2) What is your reason for believing the Bible's messages can be taken out of context to apply to a modern audience?
3) What is your reason for believing in the Trinity?
4) What is your reason for believing in the divinity of Jesus?

Remember, I said "your reason". Quoting Bible verses alone will not help since those cannot be considered "your reasons". I am not asking for logic, or rationality or anything like that from you. I just want to know what you reasons are for having faith. After all, you believe in Jesus but not in Mohammed, therefore there must be a particular reason for you to esteem the former.

 

[Q25]

I continue to pray for him and others who have stumbled.

prayer doesnt work it would contradict gods omnipotence,
www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html read the part on "Divine plan"
and
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/index.html click God

This is not a new idea but, logic cannot explain God.

sure it can,
you just dont want to accept logic,reason,b/c it would destroy your faith

It's in the Bible, as many of us are aware. But furthermore, those that try to explain their belief in God as logical seemingly contradict their own belief.

of course God as described/defined by the bible is contradictory,thats why they teach you NOT to think for yourself just blindly follow,
its called brainwashing.

Jesus Walks,

Patriot

or does he?
www.infidelguy.com/ig16.html

 

[Patriot]

Robtex: Thank you for your input, but I believe you misinterpreted my intentions. I know that Muhammad wasn't mortal, and was a prophet. I believe that he was a prophet, but some Muslims (not all, not even the majority, but some) believe that Muhammad was to fulfill the role of Savior. (sort of sacreligious of you ask me, accepting a traditionally jewish role). I also acknowledge the fact that culture and location play a huge part into your indoctrinated religion. If I were Iranian, I would be raised in the Islam faith. However, that does not mean that I have faith in Islam.

Southstar: You are not a cadet in Satan's army, just a private. Just kidding. God and I both love you just as you are, despite our disappointment in your choices and actions. And the problem, or confusion, or what have you, that arises with your 'zeal' is that you were fitting the Bible to your doctrine. Instead, you have to fit what you say to God's doctrine. It becomes very hard to get the words right (philosophers have a word for this), such as definitions and such, but you must be careful not to construe Biblical word to what you see fit. There is a very fine line between 'my' doctrine and God's word. They should be one and the same, but it is impossible to know what God wants. Then, one would be God, would they not? Or at least close to it. And as far as the validity of every other religion claiming their god to be the one true God, I must remind you that as a Christian, I recognize the fact that Satan believes in God. If I were a mortal (and immortal) enemy of God, and wanted to challenge his power, I would clone it, and make the clone as close as possible to the real thing. Now, I know your response to that, the question we all seek: Would the real god please stand up? How does one know which religion's 'god' is the one true God? Well, it seems to me, and I am well-studied, but not as well as I'd like to be, that Christianity is the only religion that recognizes the fact that Satan is against itself. All other religions, seemingly to myself, please correct me if I'm wrong, see Satan (or other evil-being) as the source of evil, not a direct enemy. Christianity warns of false-religions, false-prophets, etc. Other religions do not directly say that there are clones. And as for the answers to your questions, here they are, as obscure of answers they may be:

1) My reason for faith (such a contradiction of terms, is it not? ) is the fact that I have yet seen something else that makes more sense to me. Considering the facts at hand, not too conclusive however, it makes sense.

2) Why wouldn't God's word apply to God's people, no matter when they live?

3) The Trinity is so simple: it is a logical progression of God, as needed by humanity. At first, we needed a Father, then a Friend, then a Facilitator. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, respectively. It also happens that they coexist at the same time, but are of the same substance. I'm sure you are familiar with the water metaphor: three phases, same makeup.

4) Divinity of Jesus: Simply because He said so. Even the Islamic and Jewish faiths attest to his existence, not only that, but his moral goodness. (specifically his honesty). As a Christian, I know that Muhammad existed and was a prophet and led a good life. If he claimed to be God (which he did not), I may be led to believe that he was, simply because he didn't lie a lot. Just standard human nature: believe the honest people.

No Bible verses there, just thought.

Q25: I am familiar with all of the so-called logical paradoxes you have presented. The entire purpose of this thread is to say that logic could not possibly explain what God is, how He is, etc. You have to take it with faith. As the old Scholastic slogan goes: "Philosophy (in this case, logic) is the handmaiden of theology. If they contradict, the philosophy is wrong.

Hope this is all satisfactory. Looking forward to your response!

Jesus Walks,

Patriot

 

[anonymous2]

Robtex: 4) Divinity of Jesus: Simply because He said so. Even the Islamic and Jewish faiths attest to his existence, not only that, but his moral goodness. (specifically his honesty). As a Christian, I know that Muhammad existed and was a prophet and led a good life. If he claimed to be God (which he did not), I may be led to believe that he was, simply because he didn't lie a lot. Just standard human nature: believe the honest people.

While Muslims are bound by Islam to believe in Jesus' existence and moral goodness; from what I've read, Jews aren't bound by Judaism to believe in Jesus' existence or moral goodness. The Talmud refers to a "Yeshu", he lived around 80 BCE, during the reign of Alexander Janneus, and this "Yeshu" was hung, and apparently not crucified. One may say that "hung" is reference to crucifixion, but a herald was sent out for 40 days saying this "Yeshu" is going to be stoned, and "hung" in Judaism meant stoned to death and then the dead body hung on a tree. There are other supposed references, but I don't think it clearly says the Jesus of the NT is historical. And no, I don't think Judaism looks upon Jesus' "moral goodness". To them, if he existed and did the things mentioned in the NT, he tolerated/encouraged violation of the Law of Moses. If you want, go to http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2269&highlight=yeshu and see how they view the Jesus of the NT.

 

[camphlps]

Matrix, right and wrong are just words. Doesnt matter if you believe what is right and what is wrong. If its is wrong to him, that is all that matters to him.

Though it seems to be a atheist, more than a theist, that always seems to state something irrelavent in hopes, guessing, that it improves their point even when it has nothing to do with it. Example: "Did mommy and daddy teach you science using christian cartoons?". I curious in what makes these people want to join a forum for religion. Not to say atheist shouldnt be welcome, but they seem to mock any form of religion.

 

[§outh§tar]

And as far as the validity of every other religion claiming their god to be the one true God, I must remind you that as a Christian, I recognize the fact that Satan believes in God.

Oh? So this is a fact? Why don't you present some supporting evidence for this "fact" of yours? Note: There is no such thing as a subjective fact.

If I were a mortal (and immortal) enemy of God, and wanted to challenge his power, I would clone it, and make the clone as close as possible to the real thing.

Just because you would do it does NOT at all mean that Satan is determined to do the same, if he even exists. Can you provide any reason behind your statement that since (as an enemy of God) you would make false religions, Satan must therefore be doing the same? It simply makes no sense and is fallacious.

Now, I know your response to that, the question we all seek: Would the real god please stand up? How does one know which religion's 'god' is the one true God? Well, it seems to me, and I am well-studied, but not as well as I'd like to be, that Christianity is the only religion that recognizes the fact that Satan is against itself. All other religions, seemingly to myself, please correct me if I'm wrong, see Satan (or other evil-being) as the source of evil, not a direct enemy.

Does Christianity too not point to Satan as the source of all evil? After all, if Satan is not the source of evil, that leaves God as the only root of evil. And we can't have that, can we? So you say Satan is the source of evil? But that would mean God created a sinful being? Wait a minute, doesn't the same Bible say that all good and perfect things come from the Father? So how does evil exist if it doesn't come from the Father? Hmm.. seems like a clear contradiction to me (correct me if you can).

1) My reason for faith (such a contradiction of terms, is it not? ) is the fact that I have yet seen something else that makes more sense to me. Considering the facts at hand, not too conclusive however, it makes sense.

It's not a contradiction of terms at all, really. Since you refuse to believe in other religions, there must be some reasoning behind your inclination to faith in Christian doctrine as opposed to Islam, for example. This is what I am looking for from you. What "facts at hand", praytell, are responsible for your faith? And if they are not "too conclusive", why do you insert your own eisegesis in order to substantiate your faith? This is obviously dishonesty to oneself;devoting oneself to an entire system of beliefs based on these vague "facts at hand" of yours.

2) Why wouldn't God's word apply to God's people, no matter when they live?

Well now you're putting the cart before the horse. You are now supposing it really is God's Word. Please also provide your reasoning behind believing the Bible's books really are God's Word, since you obviously don't believe the Koran is God's Word. Also do you believe God's Word (the Bible) to be inerrant and why?

Also for example, take Paul's epistle to the Romans. Why do you take that letter out of its historical context and attempt to apply it to a modern audience? What is your reasoning behind believing that taking someone's letter out of context some 2000 years later is justified? Apparently also, God's Word about sacrificing sheep and goats didn't apply to Christians? Does that mean God changes His mind (His Word)? Why should Isaiah's writings concerning a Jewish nation be imposed upon an audience over two and a half millenia later?

3) The Trinity is so simple: it is a logical progression of God, as needed by humanity. At first, we needed a Father, then a Friend, then a Facilitator. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, respectively. It also happens that they coexist at the same time, but are of the same substance. I'm sure you are familiar with the water metaphor: three phases, same makeup.

Wow, talk about contradictions. Now you say the Trinity is a "logical" progression? Do you even know how the Trinitiarian doctrine was birthed? Are you at all familiar with the Johannine comma? I advice you to read up on those two things before going any further with your comments on the Trinity.

4) Divinity of Jesus: Simply because He said so. Even the Islamic and Jewish faiths attest to his existence, not only that, but his moral goodness. (specifically his honesty). As a Christian, I know that Muhammad existed and was a prophet and led a good life. If he claimed to be God (which he did not), I may be led to believe that he was, simply because he didn't lie a lot. Just standard human nature: believe the honest people.

No Bible verses there, just thought.

Hmm.. now you contradict yourself even more.

If Mohammed was also a moral person, then why do you not believe in his teachings on God? Is it not foolish to say he led a "good life" if you believe his teachings are false and he is liar. You actually have the audacity to say his teachings were Satanically inspired. And yet, here you are contradicting yourself and saying "he didn't lie a lot" when you think everything he taught was a complete and outright lie. And what about the moral people who say that there is no evidence of God? Is it not foolish to disbelieve them, by your logic, since they are "honest"?

All you know about Jesus' morality comes from venerating biographies written by his supporters? Why do you naievely believe that the accounts in these biographies are true, especially when these same biographies contradict each other? Why do you believe that His ardent supporters would be objective in their presentation and leave His biography empty of embellishment? Is this not a dishonest and unreasonable stance? You are basing your entire faith on what some other person said about Jesus, in essence. Does this seem like you are being honest with yourself, to place your faith in what a third party says about their God?

 

[Jenyar]

Are you at all familiar with the Johannine comma?

You think the whole doctrine rests on a comma? (Yes, I know what a comma is).

 

[Jenyar]

Well now you're putting the cart before the horse. You are now supposing it really is God's Word. Please also provide your reasoning behind believing the Bible's books really are God's Word, since you obviously don't believe the Koran is God's Word. Also do you believe God's Word (the Bible) to be inerrant and why?

We believe the Bible because it tells about Jesus, not in Jesus because the Bible tells us about Him. If it told us about Muhammed, we would not have believed it. Jesus is God's Word, one that can be heard and understood without the intervention of text - but who can be expressed through text as well as any person. "Inerrancy" does not apply to a person - you either trust him or you don't.

 

[MagiAwen]

Patriot said:

All other religions, seemingly to myself, please correct me, if I'm wrong, see Satan (or other evil-being) as the source of evil, not a direct enemy.

I'd have to say you are incorrect. I am Wiccan (o0o0o scary), I do not believe in god or satan. I do not believe in absolute good nor absolute evil. I believe they coexist in a fine balance and it is when a person is off balance that they may be seen as evil.

I am a little rusty as I have not discussed these types of things in a while so if memory serves: Amos 3:6 asks rhetorically, "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" (Yes, I know about the fall.) To me that is saying that all is good and evil...a balance. I don't think "evil" is as simple as you would like to think.

And I am also curious, Jenyar. You said:

We believe the Bible because it tells about Jesus, not in Jesus because the Bible tells us about Him. If it told us about Muhammed, we would not have believed it. Jesus is God's Word, one that can be heard and understood without the intervention of text

I was wondering...why? I mean how did you hear about God and Jesus in the first place? I understand what you are saying and I am not challenging it. But I'd like to know how you believed in Jesus first without the teachings of the Bible. Simple curiosity.


Anyways...what I don't understand is why we all just cannot accept what others believe as long as it does not harm each other? I mean can't we all just get along??

Rodney Grey did a study of the Crow Indians. He wrote:

"Because [their] Sun Dance religion recognizes, and even encourages, individual interpretation and realization within the spiritual, no dissonance generally arises when individuals hold contrasting understandings of the nature of the cosmos. The Apsaalooke [Crow] may disagree among themselves on such issues, but the need for a consensus on cosmology is subordinate to the function of the religion as a means to the spiritual..."

To further my example. As I said earlier, I am Wiccan. I believe personally that there is an ultimate spiritual unity to existence. Some other Wiccans [read: and/or Pagans], believe in ultimate multiplicity [read: gods and goddess]. However, we (of those I have encountered in my entire life) do not let any disagreements undermine our ability to work together, or to recognize one another as a Wiccan (or Pagan). To me whether or not a ritual or proposal feels right is greatly more important than its doctrinal orthodoxy.

This type of thinking is also in the Bible in the New Testament Matthew 7:20 "...by their fruits ye shall know them." What are the fruits of valid spiritual practice? Galatians 5:22 - 3 tells me that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,goodness,faith,meekness,temperance....." But the fruits of those who have emphasized the errors of their faiths, when offered the power of state or mob to enforce their beliefs, have been vile, murderous, evil, and as far removed from these fruits of spirit in Biblical terms as a person can get.

Practicing one's own faith, and thereby setting an appealing example for others, does seem in keeping with the fruits of Spirit. Jesus seems continually critical of those who made a public spectacle of their piety. He often also emphasized that He would not judge others for their actions Which seems to suggest to me that Jesus found more important things to do spiritually than aggressively confronting those with whom He disagreed.

Food for thought. Time to go to work.

 

[Patriot]

I think it quite funny, where the post has headed. I originally posted the thread to say that there is NO rational thought that can explain why people believe what they believe, nor if what they believe is even true. However, many have commented to know why I believe what I believe. If I could explain it, trust me I would. It is purely faith. That leap one takes in order for one to grasp something above thought. For instance, Burt Rutan believed it possible for a private organization to make it to space. It just happened. Many of us have never seen a million dollars, but we know it exists. How? Other people have seen it. And other people have seen the miracles of Jesus, and even God, but we have to rely on centuries old accounts of it. And to rely on those accounts, more faith is required. Being a Christian also, I see atheists and even some agnostics as having more faith than myself, as ignorant a statement that may be. To me, it requires a larger leap to assert that you just die. Nothing else, just death. As many religions as there are, including my own faith, we are all wrong, and you just die. But some of the posts, disregarding TheMatrixIsReal's, have brought up quite interesting points. Let me address some of them.


MagiAwen: Let me simply change my statement to apply to the religions who believe in a source of evil (being Satan, or what have you).
I apologize.


Southstar:: Satan, if he exists, must believe in God, because of the inherent nature of Satan. How could there be a source of evil, without a source of good? If Satan exists, where did he come from? If Satan exists, why be evil, without something to be evil against? That fact, being subjective and I apologize, rests on the postulate that Satan does exist.


Christianity does see the Satan as the source of most evil, but MORE importantly, a direct enemy to God. I say most evil, because some evil comes from human choices. And as for evil coming from the Father, first why couldn't it? Who says God is moral? I personally believe the God is amoral. And secondly, it is another point that has to be taken with a grain of salt, and a bucket of faith.

The Bible says that the Bible is God's word. I don't believe the Qu'ran does...I may be wrong on that- need to check.

And as for Muhammad, while his teachings are wonderful from a moral standpoint, his teachings may or may not be divine, that is God speaking through him. I have yet to ascertain that, as I am not concerned with it. However, as a Christian, I do believe that everything in the Bible is divine and God driven, including the people mentioned in it.

I apologize for the points I've missed/ignored. I will return, must be in class right now.

Jesus Walks,
Patriot

 

[water]

are you a second generation Christian or beyond, and if so or not, if you were born in say Egypt (who are reguarly seen as a bad guy in the old testiment) or in Japan would you instead have been drawn to the major religions of those countries just as surely as much of their population is?

A very good and important consideration! The multiculturalism as we know it for the last hundred years or so has no comparable precedens in history; so I suppose we should forget history altogether and forge our path some other way.

We're back at the "Which religion is the right one?" question.
As an external observer, I dare say that the right religion is the one one truly lives.
I know that I have thereby said next to nothing, but if we agree that absolute truth exists, but is too overwhelming for a human to comprehend it rationally, then "the right religion is the one one truly lives" doesn't seem off at all.


***

This is not a new idea but, logic cannot explain God.

STOP right there! This quick dismissal of "logic" is faulty.
While I don't have up-close and in-deep knowledge about various kinds of logic, I know enough to say that "logic cannot explain God" is a hasty generalization.

Which logic cannot explain God, and which God? Classical logic maybe not, but classical logic isn't all there is. As soon as you come to systems and holistic theories, you can infer an "omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient" instance, which is traditionally called "God".

Really, only those blindly sticking to something they call "classical logic" will say that "logic cannot explain God". Otherwise, I don't think logic in general has a case against God.

 

[MagiAwen]

I originally posted the thread to say that there is NO rational thought that can explain why people believe what they believe, nor if what they believe is even true. However, many have commented to know why I believe what I believe.

It may have been better, then, to have named your thread 'Faith-Based Apologies' instead of 'Faith-Based Apologetics'.

And if you didn't want to stir up a debate...you would have not posted it.

 

[SnakeLord]

I continue to pray for him and others who have stumbled.

I remember a time when Southstar would have said 'amen' to your post. You would have said 'amen' back and then the pair of you would dance around joyously having the exact same feelings and thoughts about this supposed loving creator.

So what has changed? Do you think it's possible that Southstar now just "disbelieves" in god even though he once would have sworn to his existence - and even say he 'felt his presence'? That doesn't sound logical. I believe in gravity, and can "feel its presence". I'm not gonna just wake up one day and not believe in it anymore.

It's far more logical to see that there never was anything there to begin with, Southstar just wanted there to be.

It's the same for everyone who has "faith". As such, I wouldn't say he's "stumbled", or feel the need to pray for him. He has finally woken up.

 

[spidergoat]

Defending the faith...hmmm...
Isn't this a contradiction? ...defense (logical explanation based on evidence) of faith (belief despite evidence)?

 

[Patriot]

Let me work backwards here, starting with TheMatrix.
Disregarding the useless derogatory statements:

Of course... they had to happen centuries ago when there were no photographs, no video cameras, no microphones, etc. If someone tried to do that today they would be laughed at and called a hoax.

Not necessarily, Matrix. Many things are taken as fact with no photographs, video etc. For instance, how do you know that the earth revolves around the sun? There is no absolute stationary point in the universe. Both Copernicus and Ptolemy could be correct in their systems. Just because there is no pure evidence for something does not necessarily make it a hoax.

Of course, all irrational things need faith, how else would they live on so that future generations can be irrational about them?

That may be true that all irrational things need faith, but not all things that one has faith in are irrational, are they? Such as believing tomorrow will come.
Otherwise, what point would there be in posting? Or making a doctor's appointment? Good point though, many irrational things need faith. Some people may even say that atheism is irrational because of the same point you just made. It requires faith that there is no God, just as it requires faith that there is.

What the hell makes humans so special they get to cheat death?

What makes us so special that we get rationality? I don't know.

Awwww, recess is over?

You're just jealous you don't get recess.

Isn't this a contradiction? ...defense (logical explanation based on evidence) of faith (belief despite evidence)?

Not necessarily. I'm defending the fact that I rest on faith, not the faith itself.

As such, I wouldn't say he's "stumbled", or feel the need to pray for him. He has finally woken up.

If someone were to "lose faith" that tomorrow would come, you'd call he or she "off the rocker". Or something to that effect. Christians have a better term for it. Not saying that Southstar is an idiot, but just that he/she lost faith.

It may have been better, then, to have named your thread 'Faith-Based Apologies' instead of 'Faith-Based Apologetics'.

Possibly.....

STOP right there! This quick dismissal of "logic" is faulty.

You are correct. I am dismissing classical logic. But most people on this forum, from what I've noticed, only use classical logic. And you are also correct in saying that holistic logic may allow us to infer there is a God. But once again, it is not conclusive, and I believe it never will be, for either there is a God, or there isn't a God. That's why there's a choice. If it were proven that there was a God, then there would be no point in many religions, as they rely on faith.

Jesus Walks,
Patriot

 

[robtex]

Patroit

I wanted to know two things and don't feel you are obligated or pressured in any way to answer them but here they are:

1) In your original post you said you are here to defend your faith? Why is it neccessary to do this when you are a large part of the majority in the United States and at this point extinction of your religion is such a remote improbality that I would say the chances are zilch.

2) Why is there such a strong effort for conversion. Given the knowedge that most people worship a God and that most agnostic and athiests seem to fall into inot the humanist categories or utilitarian categories which are very value oriented as a whole...

 

[Q25]

For instance, how do you know that the earth revolves around the sun?

surely youre joking?

but not all things that one has faith in are irrational, are they? Such as believing tomorrow will come.

that has nothing to do with faith as compared to believing in some particular sky fairy.
we know from experience of living on this planet that as long as the sun keeps shining the world will keep turning and hence,tomorrow will come!
no need for faith

It requires faith that there is no God, just as it requires faith that there is.

wrong again,

we have no evidence for G therefore no belief.much like nonbelief in Leprechauns,Tooth fairy or Santa claus
(and no need for gods either,check Ockhams razor sometime)
and no atheism is not religion if thats where you going with this

you have no evidence,
(well except the bible, so called word of God and you know how much thats worth)
just a wishfull thinking/hope for eternal life,so thats why you believe,

What makes us so special that we get rationality? I don't know.

I do
logic,reason

 

[anonymous2]

Not necessarily, Matrix. Many things are taken as fact with no photographs, video etc. For instance, how do you know that the earth revolves around the sun? There is no absolute stationary point in the universe. Both Copernicus and Ptolemy could be correct in their systems. Just because there is no pure evidence for something does not necessarily make it a hoax.

I don't think Ptolemy was correct. Ptolemaic geocentricity had Venus and the sun orbiting the earth, with Venus on an "inner track" (closer to the earth than the sun is to the earth). Venus and Mercury are always seen close to the sun, not away from it like Jupiter can be. Galileo discovered that Venus had "phases" like the moon which wasn't consistent with the Ptolemaic geocentric model. Venus can only have certain types of "phases" if Venus is always closer to the earth than the sun is. Venus, instead, has phases which show that it's at times closer and at time's further from the earth than the sun is from the earth. (Mercury also has these phases which show it revolves around the sun). Venus [and Mercury] are not "on the other side" of the sun according to Ptolemaic geocentricity. Tycho Brahe's geocentric model (which I think had the planets besides earth orbiting around the sun, and the sun orbiting around the earth) better explained the phases of Venus. Even if the center of mass of the entire universe is, at all times, at the center of the earth, I don't think that would mean the earth would be motionless. From what I've read, since the sun is so close to the earth, it has a stronger gravitational effect on the earth than any stars/galaxies light years away.

Even if you believe that the center of the earth is the center of the mass of the universe at all times, how do you explain the discovery of stellar parallax if the earth is totally stationary?

If you want, check out this website of a discussion between a "Heliocentric" Catholic and a "Geocentric" Catholic. http://catholicoutlook.com/centerofmass2.php