Do you believe in God? - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Do you believe in God? (/thread-53245.html)

---

Do you believe in God? - hydrogonian - 01-25-2016

This is my view:

"God" (in the context of this discussion: monotheism) is a social concept (cultural software), real or not. Thus, his actual existence is irrelevant to practical belief.

So, if one "believes" in God, it is equivalent to believing in the social concept and that its social effects are desirable.

Conversely, not believing in God is equivalent to believing in another social concept that will always fill the vacuum in the cognitive-values space (the philosophical concept of both the self and its relation to the community).

In the shared philosophical space this replacement occurs once the vacuum, that was before occupied by the shared community concept of God, expands to other individuals in a community.

Unfortunately, on a social level, there is no escaping software.

Rejection of one type of software ensures its replacement by another type of software of differing structure and social effects.

This is why God should be considered by everyone outside of his provable historicity, including by anyone hung up on a sola scriptura derived concept of truth that they might reject for whatever reason. Neither the provability of scriptural history nor scripture contents are solely appropriate methods for considering the concept of God.

The evaluation should be based on what you personally want for society.

To illustrate, the bible could be full of stories of purple-people-eaters and it would not make one ounce of meaningful difference. The only aspect of religion that matters is the social software (theological framework) that it installs, and its effect. Scripture is merely the myth that is the executable file, to beat the metaphor to death.

The over-emphasis on personal scriptural interpretation over a coherent theological framework has confused large numbers of individuals over the past millenia as to the nature of religion, its historical purpose, and the nature of its primary sources (in the modern West: scripture, in the pre-modern West: myth).

To wit, Rabbis do not believe that scripture is literal. It is a book of coded analogy that installs the software. That Christian sects take it literally conveys faulty or otherwise thin theologies that parishioners understand very little about.

Moving on...

Religion, at its core, is about ontology. That is, it is about the definition of person-hood. It follows that, in parallel, atheism is also, at its core, about person-hood.

To begin with the Greeks (though the most fruitful beginning for study is with the Egyptians), an example of a fully expanded ontology would be arguably represented by Platonic Idealism. That is, your person-hood (identity) is anchored to a hierarchically superior ideal of who you are and can become.

You, and by extension greater society, are an imperfect representation of a heavenly ideal that both you and society spend your existences attempting to better represent. You do not have any legitimacy as an individual apart from this definition, and its manifestation in community.

In summary, both your individual and social identities (your relation to the group) are dependent on an objective truth that is not "subject" to individual interpretation. Right and wrong and what constitutes civilizational / community success are all immutable concepts rooted in a divine ideal that you are always attempting to mirror.

This theology can be framed in the secular-ish philosophical language of the Greeks, but its root is in the genesis of human civilization and its theological / mythological underpinnings that are indistinguishable at this stage of civilization.

We only have knowledge of the history for which we have written records, and thus perhaps our most thorough knowledge of an Ancient civilization comes from Egypt.

In Egypt, we see the theology, that is reflected in Platonic Idealism, in the concept of Ma'at. This is the concept, central to Egyptian civilization, that was representative of the Heavenly ideal of Egyptian society as created in the first moments of existence in their creation myth.

The entirety of their religion, with a few qualifications, essentially had to do with restoring Ma'at in the constant struggle against Chaos.

First Chapter recommendation: Order, Chaos, and the World to Come by Norman Cohn http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Chaos-World...os+ma%27at

Have you ever seen a statue in Europe, or a painting, that had a Hero lancing or stepping on a large serpent? They are rather common. This imagery takes its root from the perennial mythology/theology that held the fight of Order against Chaos as its central struggle.

In Egyptian theology, Set (ironically also a representative of a lesser more intermittent Chaos - their theological understanding was complex) accompanied Ra on his nightly boat ride through the underworld, wherein Set was responsible for lancing the ultimate representation of outer-waters Chaos represented by the Dragon / Serpent.

There are artistic representations of everyone from Greek Heroes to Joan of Arc to the Virgin Mary completing the act of either lancing or putting the serpent underfoot. This is the mythological representation of the subjugation of Chaos to Order.

We see the same central theme across ancient mythology/theology, as the above recommended book will explain.

To reiterate the theme: civilization and its individuals hold themselves to be imperfect reflections of, and irreducibly anchored to in terms of their core identity, a heavenly ideal that they ceaselessly work to recreate (and thus work to recreate Heaven on Earth). This involves a constant struggle against the forces of Chaos, which occasionally win. However, a new order, and thus a better reflection of the ideal, always arises to take the place of the broken order.

This Heavenly ideal is created by a demiurge, a creator god that is the ancient understanding of God across most ancient cultures, and is the objective truth to which man is ontologically anchored. The Heavenly ideal is your potential and destiny as a person. It is society's potential, destiny, and eternal representation of true Order. It is Heaven, God's finest creation, and the ontological connection to it is the anchor that exists between Heaven and Earth.

There exists a variety of sources that can lead you through the slide from a fully expanded ontological philosophy / theology to where we are today with a flat ontology. This flat ontology means that we have no anchor for person-hood outside of ourselves and our individual subjective interpretations of reality. If you choose to investigate, note that it only took one seemingly minor theological adjustment to open the logical door that began a two thousand year slide to rootless individual subjectivism. I'll leave it to you to discover the errors through your reading, should you be interested. Further discussion is out of scope, and frankly you deserve to read it from historical experts.

While I don't know of any authors that aren't at least a little biased or sometimes polemical (even historical theologians and philosophers all seem to have their biases), I can recommend Nick Laos http://nicolaslaos.com/ as a good source. He has an article online, that is really more like a short book, that will give you the basics. http://www.4pt.su/en/content/civilizatio...cal-causes Be sure to copy and paste the text into a word file for highlighting and ease of keeping your place. It'll take you some time to get through it.

Also, he has a book called The Metaphysics of World Order that is the more fleshed out version of the article. http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-World-...bc?ie=UTF8

Nick is dense to read, even for someone used to dense reading, if you aren't formally educated in philosophy. However, one does not need to grasp every detail to grasp the full picture. Often, I only understand 50-80% of what he writes but I keep plowing and I recommend that you do the same toward receiving the general message and most pertinent details. Also, he doesn't delve further than the Greeks. The extended Ancient theology needs to be read somewhere else, if interested. Last, Nick is distantly politically associated with persona-non-grata Aleksandr Dugin, so, you know, you'll get super-edge credit for reading him. There might be alternatives to Laos, but he's one of the most scary-intelligent men I've ever read and so I find him to be a worthy recommendation on this general topic of political-theology.

Theology and philosophy is a bitch to sift through pretty much from the advent of Christianity on, simply because of the copious theories and writing that manifested from the early Christians attempting to justify Christianity, meld it with Greek philosophy, fight what they considered to be heresy, adjust theology to geographic intellectual culture (from Greece to Rome for instance), adjust for purposes of governing (Rome), and again adjust for all of the philosophical add-ons and arguable theological errors that were tacked on since the beginning. And it just continues for two thousand years until we arrived at secular individual subjectivism and nihilism. I tend to try to read for the larger picture. Whatever one's approach to the material, this realm of understanding is, indeed, the software of our society if anyone cares to jump in with two feet.

Last, what I found with myself, and this is likely the case with many skeptics, is that a true belief in God is not difficult to arrive at naturally if we arrive at it via the correct avenue for our disposition. That avenue, at least for me, is the one of discovery of a theological deeper meaning and a theological history that is compared with our so-called progress, motivated by an undercurrent of belief in the goodness and potential of man and his civilization. In other words, getting the root of what religion is, what its rites and theological frameworks actually mean, and how this affects and facilitates a eminently functional civilization as well as individual spiritual healing or "progress" when relevant to a specific religion. Out of all of that logic, and comparing the results of the two extremes (ie: theocracy and secularism) I can honestly say that with a full heart, and no caveats nor hesitation, that I believe in God. Most importantly, that last step in belief is one of Faith and not Logic. Plato would agree with the necessity of that last step in arriving at Truth.

---

Do you believe in God? - Pride male - 01-25-2016

I am sure everybody has read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. What is this Providence that I hear Americans going about?

---

Do you believe in God? - Samseau - 01-26-2016

Holy fuck, it's Hydrogonian! For those who do not know, Hydro was one of the first great posters on this forum. I remember reading his posts when I was still trying to figure out my game. Dunno why he bounced back in 2010 or so but damn it's been a long time man!

As for your answer on God; I like it. You basically state that a belief in God leads to good things, therefore you believe in God. The only problem I have with this is that different people's have shown to have different beliefs in God; how would one decide which God is best to believe in such a case?

I think you underestimate the importance of scripture in establishing a common set of rules for believers to follow, and the miraculous nature of scripture surviving unbelievable odds to the present day. Keep in mind that all of our history was preserved through Christian monks after the fall of the Roman empire. Our conception of the past is therefore inextricably linked with Christ.

---

Do you believe in God? - Disco_Volante - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-25-2016 11:48 PM)Pride male Wrote:  

I am sure everybody has read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. What is this Providence that I hear Americans going about?

The most successful countries are traditionally Christian and inhabited by Christians, it'd take a really delusional person to deny that has anything to do with their success and quality of life. Look how many Muslims and atheists want to live in America. the 'ignorant' Christian country. Except now with no morals, social problems (welfare, single moms etc) are overwhelming the system.

It's becoming very obvious that any country not explicitly Christian will become a hellhole. At minimum you have to admit it's the superior method for civilizational behavior. and Japan's success, like China's was largely enabled by trade deals with robust Christian countries.

But you don't believe in providence, so to explain the differences between say, Somalia and Utah you'd have to admit skin color is the determinant of success/fail.

---

Do you believe in God? - GlobalMan - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-24-2016 08:48 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

I refuse to believe all this is random.

This is one of most repeated phrases when this topic comes up, and it completely misrepresents what evolution proposes. There is nothing "random" about. It's the exact opposite of random.

Not taking a stance on either side, but I think it's important for people to understand this point.

---

Do you believe in God? - Pride male - 01-26-2016

^ What about Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Ancient China, Athens etc etc? These were non Christian places that thrived.

---

Do you believe in God? - Samseau - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 04:25 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

^ What about Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Ancient China, Athens etc etc? These were non Christian places that thrived.

Thrived until they died. Christianity has beaten them all by a landslide.

---

Do you believe in God? - CostinR - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 04:25 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

^ What about Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Ancient China, Athens etc etc? These were non Christian places that thrived.

You're only right about the first three, but certainly not China or Athens. China was the sight of the most brutal wars, especially civil wars, in human history. I'd hardly call that thriving.

Athens collapsed within 100 years.

Quote:Quote:

I am sure everybody has read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is nothing more then a guy full of himself who makes so called great arguments in the absence of anyone debating him for real. I remember when he got his ass kicked in a verbal argument by a muslim over his child abuse bullshit.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/gene...1381.html, 23 minute mark.

Quote:Quote:

This is one of most repeated phrases when this topic comes up, and it completely misrepresents what evolution proposes. There is nothing "random" about. It's the exact opposite of random.

Not taking a stance on either side, but I think it's important for people to understand this point.

That's all well and good, but biological evolution doesn't explain the universe, it's galaxies, the solar system or our planet.

---

Do you believe in God? - Foolsgo1d - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-25-2016 08:34 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (01-25-2016 08:23 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

So if there is a god, there must also be the direct opposite of this god.

Why? Unless, of course, you have similar ideas to the Bogomils, Cathars, or Albigensians, in which case, well...

The laws of the universe would still apply. Each reaction has an opposite reaction. Life, death, dry, wet etc. As simple as that is it can be seen in the cosmos. A dying star which goes supernova will create life.

To say a being that creates life has no opposite equal is going to skew things a bit.

---

Do you believe in God? - CynicalContrarian - 01-26-2016

When I walked through the 'Bodies' exhibit in Las Vegas; to see the human body in such intricate detail & to see it all constructed the way it is.

I didn't leave questioning the existence of God. I went away questioning the propaganda of science & evolution.

---

Do you believe in God? - The Father - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 08:33 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (01-26-2016 04:25 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

^ What about Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Ancient China, Athens etc etc? These were non Christian places that thrived.

Thrived until they died. Christianity has beaten them all by a landslide.

The Christian nations will die someday, too.

---

Do you believe in God? - debeguiled - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 12:58 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

As for your answer on God; I like it. You basically state that a belief in God leads to good things, therefore you believe in God. The only problem I have with this is that different people's have shown to have different beliefs in God; how would one decide which God is best to believe in such a case?

Isn't this fundamentally the same as Pascal's Wager? If God is real and you believe in him, you win, and if he isn't and you believe in him, you still win because you have lived a better life?

I have never liked Pascal's wager because it bypasses the main issue of whether or not God exists. It's a spiritual lifehack.

For Paul in First Corinthians 32, the truth of God is verified in the Resurrection first of Jesus, and then of the dead. Without this, we are living merely in human hope, which is pointless:

Quote:Quote:

If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,

for tomorrow we die.”

---

Do you believe in God? - Samseau - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 12:51 PM)The Father Wrote:  

Quote: (01-26-2016 08:33 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (01-26-2016 04:25 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

^ What about Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Ancient China, Athens etc etc? These were non Christian places that thrived.

Thrived until they died. Christianity has beaten them all by a landslide.

The Christian nations will die someday, too.

Individual nations may die, but as a whole they will outlast everyone else. Those who accept Christ shall inherit eternal life.

---

Do you believe in God? - Phoenix - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 09:21 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

When I walked through the 'Bodies' exhibit in Las Vegas; to see the human body in such intricate detail & to see it all constructed the way it is.

I didn't leave questioning the existence of God. I went away questioning the propaganda of science & evolution.

Can a 3D printer print a more intricate 3D printer?

A human body is complex to its brain, a mere component within it, which slowly builds a grainy image of its environment within its structure (AKA knowledge & understanding).

A human body isn't complex in any absolute sense.

---

Do you believe in God? - Dr. Howard - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-25-2016 03:54 PM)avantgarde Wrote:  

Dr Howard, just look around the world, if you believe in a solely just God, but there is wickedness everywhere and the rulers are wicked, there must be s source of wickedness. If not, your God ain't only just and kind but semi benevolent.

I'm with you there. My understanding is limited but I'm under the impression that the fall of man (Adam and Eve eating the fruit and getting the boot) broke the world.

That broken/incorrect function of the world leads to earthquakes, floods, drought and disease. It isn't the will of an evil being, its an effect of a broken function. Like a car with a flat tire instead of a madman behind the wheel.

There definitely are evil forces, but they aren't God like or an anti-god. The devil for example, isn't powerful enough to prevent end of the world/judgement...he's just going to make sure he brings a large following into hell with him.

Then the inevitable question of "Well why doesn't got just flip a switch and bring the world back to Utopia?" My reply is, the switch has been flipped (book of revelations), its just not on a human timeline. Who am I to demand that it has to happen in my lifetime to make it true? If a tree is 2000 years old, do I not believe it because I never saw it as a seedling?

---

Do you believe in God? - Habano - 01-26-2016

My litmus test for the question is a life-ending scenario. Imagine that you are on a plane that suddenly quits working. As the plane plunges toward the ground for a crash where no one survives, do you say a suddenly believe that God exists? Would you pray to him to save your life or redeem your soul in the event you die?

If put in the right situation, many who deny the existence of a higher power will change their mind.

I would submit that the belief in some god is the innate nature of man. If you trace the great civilizations in history, they share with each other the common thread of belief in a god or a collection of gods, at least until the time they reached the apex of their power.

The biggest drawback to belief in a god is the perceived irrationality. But there's irrationality in the opposite belief as well. Pascal's wager is a good illustration. He (Blaise Pascal) came up with the idea that one should behave as if God exists because if one is incorrect about the existence of God, the outcome is hell and eternal damnation, far worse than the outcome of believing that God exists when he does not (in which case nothing happens).

---

Do you believe in God? - Hoo - 01-26-2016

Coming from very religious family, I read bible few times over when I was a kid. Church 2x per week and praying few times per day on top of that.

I realize now that I lived in constant, subtle fear that this monster Yahweh will somehow punish me or my loved ones for the most ridiculous things.

Now I see religion as the ultimate blue pill, and some here swallowed few too many.
I feel about Christian/Muslim god the same way you guys feel about Zeus or Thor.

Response to few posts above:





Lets end with this beauty:

---

Do you believe in God? - thoughtgypsy - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 04:35 PM)Hoo Wrote:  

-snip-

Interesting that you omitted Qatar and Saudi Arabia on that graph. Why?

I bet if you replaced lack of religiosity with acceptance of homosexuality, transexuality, feminism, and other leftist values, you'd get similar results re: IQ and personal wealth. Do you think those are also rational worldview values?

The highest IQ intelligentsia formed much of the monastic and religious leadership in classical European Christianity. All it shows, in my opinion, is that higher IQ people are more responsive to following the zeitgeist of the cultural elite of their era. Don't fool yourself, religiosity and nationalism are the new heresy in this cultural paradigm.

The correlation is also pretty weak to imply causation.

---

Do you believe in God? - The Father - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 04:35 PM)Hoo Wrote:  

Coming from very religious family, I read bible few times over when I was a kid. Church 2x per week and praying few times per day on top of that.

I realize now that I lived in constant, subtle fear that this monster Yahweh will somehow punish me or my loved ones for the most ridiculous things.

Now I see religion as the ultimate blue pill, and some here swallowed few too many.
I feel about Christian/Muslim god the same way you guys feel about Zeus or Thor.

Response to few posts above:





Lets end with this beauty:

I agree there was no reason for your family to cause you to believe a monster "Yahweh" was hiding under your bed.

---

Do you believe in God? - scorpion - 01-26-2016

I will answer this question in two parts. First, I will explain why I believe in the idea of "God", or an "intelligent creator god" in the general sense. Secondly, I will explain why I believe that the Christian God of the Bible is this intelligent creator god.

Why I believe in the idea of God in general:

To put it as simply as possible, I believe it is a logical necessity. In my view the numerous arguments from design and the Kalam cosmological argument have not been satisfactorily refuted. The Universe is clearly and obviously a product of design by an intelligence not only far beyond our own, but far beyond our ability to even comprehend. The continued ability of people to deny this fact that stares them in the face every day utterly boggles my mind. These same people would never drink a glass of water and think to themselves, "Ah, how fortuitous it was that this glass exploded randomly into existence!" They wouldn't walk along the street and upon seeing a pretty girl think to themselves, "Truly, it is remarkable that against all odds this beautiful woman manifested wholly out of nothingness." They would not play a complex and intricately crafted video game and upon finishing it say, "How amazing that such a complex and well-designed game with its millions of lines of code was assembled by pure random chance out of a binary-generating machine!" This is obvious idiocy. And yet people will say with a straight face, "The universe, with its endless complexity and elegance that extends from the elemental level of subatomic forces to the movement of entire galaxies, occurred randomly without any intelligence behind it." If glasses of water and women and video games cannot emerge out of nothingness, then how can an entire universe that is infinitely more complex in its scope? Can anyone really believe this?

Now, speaking of emerging out of nothingness, we touch upon the Kalam cosmological argument, which essentially says that since something cannot emerge out of nothing, there must be some kind of force outside the perceived universe that explains its origin. This argument sounds deceptively simple and easy for some clever person to refute, but when you dig into it you find it logically impenetrable. The key is understanding that time, space and causality are themselves products of the universe. They do not exist independently or outside of the universe. They are a part of it. This is why the argument that the emergence of the universe was inevitable "after a long enough time" is utter nonsense - because prior to the universe, there was no such thing as time. Nor was there matter or space, and with no matter, space and time, no causal action is ever possible. There is simply nothing to be acted upon. Nothing ever happens because there is nothing. It's difficult to wrap one's head around until it clicks, but when it does it changes one's whole perception of reality.

Why I believe in the Christian God in particular:

I started typing this up but then I remembered I'd written a long post in an earlier thread saying pretty much this same thing in more detail than I have time for right now: thread-41903...#pid868789

Quote:scorpion Wrote:

Now, if we accept that some kind of creative force (which we call "God") is logically necessary, the question then shifts to: is God knowable, and if so, who or what is he? This is the question that divides mankind into the numerous religions of the world. From this starting point, it is easy to lose hope in answering the question immediately. With so many choices, how can we be sure we're right? Isn't it easier just to declare that even if we admit God is necessary, the safest and most logical thing is to not throw our lot in with any religion, since statistically we're likely to choose the wrong one? Well, not necessarily. We can make some logical assumptions about God that help us narrow down our options.

First, we can assume that God is interested in us. The universe was created for a reason. None of this is an accident or a throwaway cosmic science experiment, it's simply far too complex and intricate to be otherwise. And given that human beings are totally unique aspects of creation that stand apart from everything else, we must assume that God intended this to be so. Human beings are special. To put it one way, we are the stars of this show, to the amazing extent that the universe was especially created for us to inhabit.

Second, we can assume that since God is clearly so interested in humanity (a vast collection of persons), he himself must have some type of personality. He is not some unknowable cloud of energy. He must have characteristics that we would recognize as "human" in the broad sense. Does this mean he rides a cosmic horse or wears hats, or does other human-like things? No, not necessarily. It simply means that he has a distinct identity. He is knowable. When we speak of God, we speak of someone, not something.

Third, we can assume that given the innate thirst for religious belief in mankind, that God wants us to know him. Humans are hardwired to seek out God, and the vast, vast majority of men who have lived and died on the Earth have been theists of some type. Of course, this does not prove anything - just because 99% of people believe something does not make it true - however, we can conclude that religious belief of some type is fundamental to the human condition, and thus if we accept the idea of a personal creator then we must also conclude he intended that we seek him.

Fourth, we can assume that since God is a "person" who wants us to know him, that he would not leave us in the dark. He would communicate enough about himself to lead us down the right path. And since he is God and by definition all-powerful and omniscient, we can further assume that God's truth and revelation would not be hidden deep in some obscure text or limited to some tiny group of people. God's message would be universal in scope, applicable and known to all mankind. God would ensure that his message would be available to any who earnestly sought it out.

Fifth, we can assume that since God's message is universal, it must speak equally to the hearts of everyone in the world. It would not be a message bound by particular ethnic practices or traditions. It would be something recognizably different, something that fundamentally appeals to human beings of every race and culture.

I could probably list a few more assumptions, but I'll stop there with these five. Now, given these logical assumptions about the nature of God, I believe we have a much easier task in determining which religious belief actually represents the true God, the creator of the universe. In my view, Christianity becomes to the clear choice. Why, exactly? I'll try to be brief.

To begin with, there is the Bible. The Bible is a remarkable book, and the more you read it and learn about it, the more obvious it becomes that it was divinely inspired. The coherence and non-contradictory nature of its message, the circumstances of its composition (40 different writers over 1500 years in three languages), the extremely statistically unlikely preservation of accurate original texts and many other features make the Bible totally unique among books. The grandest works of purely human composition absolutely pale in comparison, as do other religious texts. The Bible is simply a masterpiece which humanity alone was incapable of writing.

Then there is the message of Christianity: that man is essentially a fallen creature in need of redemption. On its face, it's a strange message. It's not the kind of message that man would invent. Most other man-made religious traditions express the idea that man is fundamentally good, or is at least capable of becoming good through his own effort. This is naturally the sort of idea we would expect men to create. Christianity takes the complete opposite approach, which is highly unusual and sets it apart from other religions. The corollary to man being a fallen creature is the revelation of Jesus Christ, God's son, as redeemer, through faith in whom mankind can be reconciled with God. God sets the bar fairly low. He only asks for our honest faith. Everyone who seeks shall find. Remember, this is exactly what we'd expect from a personal God who wants us to know him.

Finally, consider the fruits of Christianity. Are men better of as Christians than as atheists, or as Muslims, or as believers in any other religion? In the modern West we are currently living through the decline of Christianity. Do you think things are going well? Are our societies doing great? Hardly. Spiritually we are dead. Culturally we are circling the drain, socially we are an absolute mess. In contrast, the West thrived when it embraced Christianity. In fact, there is ample evidence to believe that Western civilization is in fact inseparable from Christianity, a hypothesis which in my opinion seems more true with each passing day.

On a personal level, as well, I believe a man is clearly better off as a Christian. I know I am. Christian faith gives a man strength, endurance and peace that he didn't have before. As an analogy, if you think of human beings as computers, think of Christianity as being the operating system designed for us. It's how we function at our best. Sure, you can run another OS on the human computer, but you'll get a lot of crashes and bugs (depression, social dysfunction, nihilism, self-destructive behavior, etc...). Christian faith does not make a man perfect by any means, but genuine faith unquestionably improves his life.

That whole thread is worth reading as well for anyone interested in this topic.

And just as I said in that previous thread, anyone who wants to discuss God or Christianity in more depth or who has questions about it, do feel free to PM me.

---

Do you believe in God? - BortimusPrime - 01-26-2016

The fallacy of the Kalam cosmological argument is that it confuses the causality we observe in the universe with a cause outside of our universe. However, we only have observational evidence to support causality within our spacetime. Furthermore it just assumes that whatever caused the universe had to be the work of some being rather than a natural process, such as lots of universes that naturally bubble up out of hyperspace. Finally there's no proof that the universe began at all, all we know is that 13 billion years ago it was compressed into a singularity and then expanded.

---

Do you believe in God? - scorpion - 01-26-2016

Quote: (01-26-2016 07:59 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

The fallacy of the Kalam cosmological argument is that it confuses the causality we observe in the universe with a cause outside of our universe. However, we only have observational evidence to support causality within our spacetime. Furthermore it just assumes that whatever caused the universe had to be the work of some being rather than a natural process, such as lots of universes that naturally bubble up out of hyperspace. Finally there's no proof that the universe began at all, all we know is that 13 billion years ago it was compressed into a singularity and then expanded.

Think about it more, the concept of nothingness obviously hasn't sunk in, nor the implications that follow. You're still stuck thinking inside the frame of reality and the physical universe. The fact is that time, space and causality presuppose themselves. They are a part of this emergent reality, they cannot be antecedent to the physical universe and causal factors of it.

Nothingness = no causality. No "hyperspace" from which universes "bubble up". There is literally nothing to bubble. There are no "natural processes" because there is no nature, nor even the most basic seeds from which natural processes could emerge. Nothing ever happens, there isn't even a blank space or darkness. Time does not pass. There is no energy or matter at all. There is no reality whatsoever.

As for saying that the universe had no beginning...you venture into faith-based territory more precarious than any theist. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of entropy. It puts a gaping hole in that theory. (briefly: https://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-u...-existence )

---

Do you believe in God? - avantgarde - 01-26-2016

Quote:Quote:

dr. Howard

It is interesting I think disorder itself and/or negativity could be associated evil and order and positivity with good.

In addition, The story of Adam and eve is old but I once wondered the older babykonian Sumerian stories of Enuma Elish and atrahasis could be true. Atrahasis talks of three gods anU, Enlil, enki. When their the lesser gods of their kind rebelled, enki created the human race for SLAVery out of a slain god their own kind geshtu and blood! But when they the humans annoyed Enlil, he sent the flood. But enki kind told atrahasis to build a ship.
In story of Adapa, it was the opposite, the man was tricked by enki, he failed to achieve immortality because he did not eat the fruit.
Considering how screwed up is the world, how can we be sure we weren't created to be servants?? But considering abrahamic religions triumphed and maybe Babylonians were wrong though. Plus Babylonians sacrificed people and stuff. Then again dOesnt matter who you believe, you are still controlled by something whether it be your desire etc.

---

Do you believe in God? - avantgarde - 01-26-2016

Hoo, in the bible, God is no monster, he destroyed the wicked, that is why in the Old Testament there is so much violence. These people were doing all sorts of terrible things. They were doing very deviant sexual acts and burning babies in a fire. That is why they were wars against the unjust.

---

Do you believe in God? - Hoo - 01-26-2016

@scorpion

Kalam argument is nothing more then dishonest words game. It's been refuted many times, point by point.

Excellent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Kc7ddnv_w

Quote:Quote:

First, we can assume that God is interested in us. The universe was created for a reason. None of this is an accident or a throwaway cosmic science experiment, it's simply far too complex and intricate to be otherwise. And given that human beings are totally unique aspects of creation that stand apart from everything else, we must assume that God intended this to be so. Human beings are special. To put it one way, we are the stars of this show, to the amazing extent that the universe was especially created for us to inhabit.

Humans are not unique, we share about 99% of DNA with chimps. The only thing that separates us from the rest is our big brain(which can easily be explained with evolution)

Compared to the universe we are so insignificant we can't even comprehend it. Also if existence of earth would represent one day(24h), we exist just for the last 1 minute.

Why all these other places? Why all this time? Why even compared to existence of "humanity" is Christianity so recent?


Second, we can assume that since God is clearly so interested in humanity (a vast collection of persons), he himself must have some type of personality. He is not some unknowable cloud of energy. He must have characteristics that we would recognize as "human" in the broad sense. Does this mean he rides a cosmic horse or wears hats, or does other human-like things? No, not necessarily. It simply means that he has a distinct identity. He is knowable. When we speak of God, we speak of someone, not something.

My head hurts, how can we just assume that he is interested in humanity? You are making huge claims and offering no other evidence then your poor reasoning.

Third, we can assume that given the innate thirst for religious belief in mankind, that God wants us to know him. Humans are hardwired to seek out God, and the vast, vast majority of men who have lived and died on the Earth have been theists of some type. Of course, this does not prove anything - just because 99% of people believe something does not make it true - however, we can conclude that religious belief of some type is fundamental to the human condition, and thus if we accept the idea of a personal creator then we must also conclude he intended that we seek him.

No, you are confusing our need to understand things with seeking god.

Fourth, we can assume that since God is a "person" who wants us to know him, that he would not leave us in the dark. He would communicate enough about himself to lead us down the right path. And since he is God and by definition all-powerful and omniscient, we can further assume that God's truth and revelation would not be hidden deep in some obscure text or limited to some tiny group of people. God's message would be universal in scope, applicable and known to all mankind. God would ensure that his message would be available to any who earnestly sought it out.

And what is his ultimate goal? For us to believe in him based on bad evidence? It's also not exactly fair, most people on this planet are now born in China,India... they are at huge disadvantage and will have hard time finding/accepting Christianity.
Why can't he just appear to everyone at the same time and if you still refuse to worship him then I guess it's fair to burn?


Fifth, we can assume that since God's message is universal, it must speak equally to the hearts of everyone in the world. It would not be a message bound by particular ethnic practices or traditions. It would be something recognizably different, something that fundamentally appeals to human beings of every race and culture.

Again, it's far from universal. In some places less then 1% of people will hear your god's message. He is pretty terrible communicator if you ask me.

I could probably list a few more assumptions, but I'll stop there with these five. Now, given these logical assumptions about the nature of God, I believe we have a much easier task in determining which religious belief actually represents the true God, the creator of the universe. In my view, Christianity becomes to the clear choice. Why, exactly? I'll try to be brief.

To begin with, there is the Bible. The Bible is a remarkable book, and the more you read it and learn about it, the more obvious it becomes that it was divinely inspired. The coherence and non-contradictory nature of its message, the circumstances of its composition (40 different writers over 1500 years in three languages), the extremely statistically unlikely preservation of accurate original texts and many other features make the Bible totally unique among books. The grandest works of purely human composition absolutely pale in comparison, as do other religious texts. The Bible is simply a masterpiece which humanity alone was incapable of writing.

Really, non-contradictory?


63,779 contradictions.

Not to mention that there are many versions of the book claiming vastly different things, then you have the issue with translations... Oh, boy.


Then there is the message of Christianity: that man is essentially a fallen creature in need of redemption. On its face, it's a strange message. It's not the kind of message that man would invent. Most other man-made religious traditions express the idea that man is fundamentally good, or is at least capable of becoming good through his own effort. This is naturally the sort of idea we would expect men to create. Christianity takes the complete opposite approach, which is highly unusual and sets it apart from other religions. The corollary to man being a fallen creature is the revelation of Jesus Christ, God's son, as redeemer, through faith in whom mankind can be reconciled with God. God sets the bar fairly low. He only asks for our honest faith. Everyone who seeks shall find. Remember, this is exactly what we'd expect from a personal God who wants us to know him.

No, this is not what we would expect from creator of everything. I would expect this from desert dwelling people who had no better explanation for things and just made up good-night stories to sleep better.

Finally, consider the fruits of Christianity. Are men better of as Christians than as atheists, or as Muslims, or as believers in any other religion? In the modern West we are currently living through the decline of Christianity. Do you think things are going well? Are our societies doing great? Hardly. Spiritually we are dead. Culturally we are circling the drain, socially we are an absolute mess. In contrast, the West thrived when it embraced Christianity. In fact, there is ample evidence to believe that Western civilization is in fact inseparable from Christianity, a hypothesis which in my opinion seems more true with each passing day.

Be honest, did you sleep in history class too ? Christianity used to be TERRIBLE, beyond terrible for majority of its existence. Only when people stopped taking is seriously it became "good"

On a personal level, as well, I believe a man is clearly better off as a Christian. I know I am. Christian faith gives a man strength, endurance and peace that he didn't have before. As an analogy, if you think of human beings as computers, think of Christianity as being the operating system designed for us. It's how we function at our best. Sure, you can run another OS on the human computer, but you'll get a lot of crashes and bugs (depression, social dysfunction, nihilism, self-destructive behavior, etc...). Christian faith does not make a man perfect by any means, but genuine faith unquestionably improves his life.

Just because something makes you happy or a better person doesn't make it any more true.

---