Religion is only illogical to those who are biased. Religion is no more illogical than science. Neither do they dissagree with each other.
Until proof can be given Scientifically that God does not exist they can never be at odds with each other. It is only the pseudoscientist who wishes to use science as a tool of dogma instead of as a tool of obtaining knowledge.
Science has every bit become as crappy as the dogmatic religions of the earth now. Science has become a religion, where man is God.
I think he said, “Faith and reason cannot be harmonized.” * He also used the term “ultimate paradox” (I think).
*2 Sören Kierkegaard. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. David F.Swenson and Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1941). p.480; Philosophical Fragments, trans. David F. Swenson and Howard V. Hong(Princeton University Press, 1936, 1962), pp. 46-47; S. U. Zuidema,Kierkegaard (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,1960).
what on earth makes you think the universe is eternal? did you carbon date it?
seriously, though, there’s no way to tell. if everyone ever was created after the thing they live in, it would seem quite eternal, wouldn’t it? the oldest person alive would still not have witnessed its birth, and therefore would assume it always had been there.
What about entropy? The idea that things are running down or progressing to maximum randomness. If the universe was eternal, it would have run down/maximized by now. It is not logical to think the universe is eternal from that perspective.
Entropy is not proven. It appears to be a sound bit of science but since we still cannot fully understand or actually identify all the forms of energy we see around us it is madness to assume entropy is correct in its entirety.
Energy constantly changes, and transfers its form. Entropy might apply in a limite fashion to many things but until we can identify things like the “real” physical arm of gravity we cannot assume that entropy effects all things.
furthermore when dealing with entropy stating that energy will eventually reach infinite resistance we must also assume that there is a way to create energy as well. It did get here from somewhere after all. In many ways entropy disqualifies its own self, because if it was true, where did all the energy come from in the very first place? And if energy can be created it would be the polar opposite of entropy thereby eliminating it as a possible end all for creation, because energy birth would be always replacing what was lost to entropy.
Entropy isn’t really a problem. The universe can be both eternal and finite by having it run in a loop. The big bang comes, everything’s created, then eventually everything runs down and the bang comes again. Or something similar. Doesn’t matter.
Evolution, Fossil Record, Big Bang v. Genesis. I disagree.
Science has no place in dogma, you’re right. If I said “Relativity means that everybody should be nice to eachother” I would be a seriously screwed up person.
No amount of proof would sway the faith in God. Why? Because we’re all pragmatists. And because when somebody asks “What do you suggest we use?” the answer is always nihilism. Meaning wins out over aimlessness. Faith is really just doublethink. It’s not that you have faith that evidence will come that proves that god exists, it’s that most evidence points to him not existing, but the benefits of everybody believing he does outweigh anything the secularists have to offer.
Frankly, secularists are being idiots. Dawkins puts forward nihilism, some others point towards hedonism. Arrgh.
ok first off, God isn’t responsible for the suffering. WE ARE!!
i just don’t get the second question, please explain
there are fossils because there were dinosaurs/animals that left them there as their remains - so what? just cause religion (christianity in this case) doesn’t explain EVERYTHING doesn’t make it irrelevant
everything doesn’t orbit us - so you want that? how would that make any difference? God may be able to defy today’s laws of physics, etc but that doesn’t mean he makes them null (in other words, it makes sense with gravity and that whole thing - I won’t go into details)
evil didn’t come from good - it comes from choices - God created us as a people of choice - and He RESPECTS OUR CHOICES, GOOD OR EVIL
he didn’t do everything at the start - oh, was he SUPPOSED to? or are you so perfect that you are trying to tell Him how to run things? how can the imperfect criticize the perfect for how it works? nice try though
why can’t it be BOTH God AND the big bang? just because science can show how something happened doesn’t replace God - it’s simply “oh, THAT’S how He did it!!!”
finally, please show me SPECIFICS!! don’t just make statements without being able to back them up! also, don’t believe all the Christians you hear from - I will concede that most of them today don’t think/ use their brain enough if not at all
It’s not necessary to understand that one. Just ignore it, it’s redundant.
Because if god was perfect why didn’t he do it right the first time?
Again, just ignore this one if you don’t understand it.
Where in the bible does it say we chose to create the devil? It was there first, tempting us with the apple, wasn’t it?
Not so fast, bucko. If he is perfect, he is perfectly efficient. The pinnacle of efficiency is to do everything you want to do in one move. If he wants to create humans, blah blah blah, he would do it in one move, not by constantly interfering.
Exactly what I’m trying to point out. Full props to you! (At least you got this one right.)
I’m working on assumptions. Einstein had his mathematicians, if he had done all the calculations by himself he wouldn’t have finished as fast.
As long as you realise that, and work hard not to be one of them (the ones who don’t use their brains).
ok can you even quote scriptures/whatever? I would really appreciate it if when you said the Bible says something, that you SHOW me WHERE
also, thanks for the input - i admit i am not perfect, i make mistakes, so thanks for any corrections that you have made/will make
on the subject of God being perfect - that’s still not meaning anything (what you said). all you’re doing is saying that He SHOULD have done it THIS way, because OBVIOUSLY it makes more sense.
see, that’s one major difference I have noticed between theists and atheists - we take a look at things regarding God that we just don’t understand, and say " He’s perfect, He must know what He’s doing, we don’t need to CORRECT GOD" - atheists see them simply as flaws, and once again HOW SOMETHING IMPERFECT CAN JUDGE PERFECTION IS BEYOND ME.
Retract? Why would I want you to retract anything? You said Christianity is full of contradictions, you didn’t provide any. It’s your ass. I don’t care if you retract anything- I was just letting you know you failed in any sort of objective to criticize Christianity.
phawkins1988
Sorry for the late reply, I am seldom if ever here Monday-Wednesday.
First, a minor conflict on point 2: If this argument means to refute Christianity, and not just generic theism, it has to take into account that humans and God are not the only posited free-will having agents. There’s Satan, angels, demons, and so on to consider. Now, I know it’s not a popular answer, but I’d just like to point that out. That said, I’m prepared to agree that at least some of the evil we see in the world is not caused directly by some intelligent, non-God agent.
I think the main conflict here is on point 3. There’s several assumptions at work here.
3A) All natural Evil can be prevented by an Omnipotent Being. If this unarguable to you, consider that we’re not just talking about natural evil in itself, we’re talking about anything that free-will possessing mortals would consider to be natural evil. The mere fact that humans need to eat and sleep, can’t fly, and aren’t immortal could all be considered examples of natural evil (especially in a world wherein some of the more severe examples we see don’t exist). It’s possible that all finite beings will experience strife from their environment, just by virtue of the fact that all their wishes are not instantaneously gratified.
3B) There is no ‘higher good’ for which some level of natural evil is admissible- That there is a certain, survivable level of strife and anguish in the world may go to serve other purpose, that when understood, makes the state of the world excusable.
3C) The universe exists entirely to propogate God’s relationship with humans. What we’re calling natural evil is, I’m assuming, situations where Nature does bad stuff to humanity. If we allow that God’s consideration extends to things other than humans, then the picture becomes a great deal more complicated- we can’t simply say there should never be any hurricanes or sickeness without considering the non-human interests that God may be working towards.
Note that 3C) calls into question our understanding of Omnibenevolent- it may be that we're defining God as good essentially because of the way He treats humans.
So, there’s no explicit contradiction among someone that doesn’t share those three assumptions. In particular, I think most Christians would disagree with 3B, and I’m inclined to disagree with all three of them-
In summary, There are agents other than God that cause some instances of ‘natural evil’, other instances of natural evil may go to serve a higher purpose, either relating to human well-being or not, and humans would percieve a certain level of natural evil in the world no matter what the world was like, so long as humans were limited, finite beings.
I think what I should of said is that religion should be simplified so that we don’t have to compromise with answers like the one uccisore just wrote. It should be clear cut.
Yeah, well. What I meant is that such questions should be resolved before hand and placed in the actual text, not having to be made up by others. You’re presenting this as ultimate truth and you haven’t solved these problems yet? Maybe the bible should be revised, adding the solutions to these problems.
The thing about 'solving' problems like these, is that people die, and new people are born. Frankly, this problem could have been solved 1000 years ago, and none of us would have come out of the womb knowing the solution. In other words, just because you haven't heard the solution yet, doesn't mean 'we' haven't solve the problem yet.
So, we have to keep going over these things. As far as putting them in a new Bible, how long would the Bible have to be before people would be unable to ask anymore questions about it?
