124 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

Ah, good to see that Jesus' teachings still live on.

Sarcasm, jus so ja nuw.

Well, just because it's on Christianity's shitlist doesn't mean its on mine.

That is not difficult at all. Hallucination, maybe? Or maybe Jesus wasn't completely dead, just like it sometimes happens to some people that come back o consciousness AFTER BURIED.

In my opinion, God acts by using natural laws, wiothout ever breaking them.

Well, He doesn't need to. If He created the laws, He can break them if He wants. And us humans, being all, high and mighty on our throne of humanity, would surely believe it didn't happen because even if God could disobey His own laws, He wouldn't because He thinks Humans and their misconceptions are more important.

Wouldn't want people to think that He was God or anything, just disobeying the Laws of Physics anytime He wants.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Or you know, maybe God makes it up as he goes along.

[Arturo]

Or maybe it was a fabrication, like the account of how there was three hours of darkness over the land when Jesus was crucified. Strange, how there was no record of this event outside of the Gospels, hm?

That is unlikely, since we have events like the conversion of Paul, and the recuperation of faith of the apostles. You know, they were ignorant fishers who had lost their lord. So they must have suffered an intense experience to revert from their state of depression to preaching the gospel.

Edited by Arturo, 23 March 2007 - 10:36 AM.

[GraniteJJ]

Or you know, maybe God makes it up as he goes along.

Hell, that's what I'd do if I was God. Make changes here and there. Mess with people.

I'd certainly be laughing at us right now, if I was God.

[vodkamaru]

I'm surprised at the number of people who seem to be believers. To me, religion is just tribal superstition. You can't really believe that the bible is the 100% word of god, right? I mean it was written by multiple people over a thousand years and translated and retranslated resulting in the bible you read. Gospels that didn't agree with canon were eliminated. It blows me away that Christians can believe something to be true because "the bible says it." The bible was written when people were even dumber than they are now. They didn't have science so unexplainable phenomena is explained by the invisible god.

Uh... not trying to put down anyone who believes in god. Just putting in my thoughts .

[Ransom]

In my opinion, God acts by using natural laws, wiothout ever breaking them.

your problem with using this statement is that you think you know and that humainity has discovered every natural law. Which is impossible.
If there just happened to be a natural phenonema that occured every few millenia where things could rise from the dead... then God would still be working within natural laws right?

People who apply everything to science, all too often assume that we have discovered everything and therefore have an infallible basis for any explanations we could give about the world.
But its not infallible, and you cant explain things using parts of a map that havent been drawn yet.

[SOAP]

If the M theory is right, anything is possible.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

your problem with using this statement is that you think you know and that humainity has discovered every natural law. Which is impossible.
If there just happened to be a natural phenonema that occured every few millenia where things could rise from the dead... then God would still be working within natural laws right?

People who apply everything to science, all too often assume that we have discovered everything and therefore have an infallible basis for any explanations we could give about the world.
But its not infallible, and you cant explain things using parts of a map that havent been drawn yet.

There's a flaw in your logic, however.

I've been sitting in this chair to use this computer for many days now. It has never ever spontaneously combusted or turned to ash, and I have no reason to believe it will when I next sit on it. Why? Because I have no reason to believe that it will behave any differently. That is not to say that it never will, after all, I don't know all the physical laws that govern how a chair behaves. Who knows? Perhaps every one hundred days it turns into jelly or vitriolic acid. However, the fact that it has so far not done so, is good enough reason for me to believe that it won't.

Arturo's opinion, which you should have correctly attributed to him, is perfectly reasonable, because there has been no real empirical evidence of the natural laws ever being apparently violated. There is nothing to show that any of the fantastic things that happened in the Bible ever really happened, and science cannot prove they ever happened. So why should we believe that God violates the natural laws?

[SOAP]

Arturo and Wolf are right. God may or may not violate natural laws, but humans DO exaggerate things [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img]. And the same story can get more and more exaggerated over time especially if it's been passed down by word of mouth for while before having been written down. We at least know that for sure.

[Doopliss]

Personally, I am atheist, however that has nothing to do with the thread, I just wanted to make it clear. Now, I have a question for Christian people. If Jesus' body was found, would you cease to believe in him?

If you want to understand God from a philosophical point of view, you should take into account some points: 1) Science cannot prove God's existence because God is over any experience, and experimental sicence is completely based in experience. Only metaphysics, philosophy's most important division, can study God. 2) Philosophy is a science, probably the most solid one as it is completely based on reason, there is no experimenting. 3) Therefore, the only way we can scientifically discuss about God's existence is using philosophy. These are some of the conclusions that philosophy has made: 4) The only rule is that God can do whatever he wants. 5) We will never be able to understand God. 6) Immanuel Kant, possibly the most important philosopher who has ever lived, demonstrated that it is impossible to philosophically prove or disprove the existence of God. 7)* None of the points above is my personal opinion. I read all of it from high quality philosophy books.

As you can see, I have enough reasons for thinking that the disucussion above is pointless.

Edited by Doopliss, 23 March 2007 - 09:50 PM.

[Ransom]

There's a flaw in your logic, however.

I've been sitting in this chair to use this computer for many days now. It has never ever spontaneously combusted or turned to ash, and I have no reason to believe it will when I next sit on it. Why? Because I have no reason to believe that it will behave any differently. That is not to say that it never will, after all, I don't know all the physical laws that govern how a chair behaves. Who knows? Perhaps every one hundred days it turns into jelly or vitriolic acid. However, the fact that it has so far not done so, is good enough reason for me to believe that it won't.

Arturo's opinion, which you should have correctly attributed to him, is perfectly reasonable, because there has been no real empirical evidence of the natural laws ever being apparently violated. There is nothing to show that any of the fantastic things that happened in the Bible ever really happened, and science cannot prove they ever happened. So why should we believe that God violates the natural laws?

I dont really see how that contradicts my statement.

I think that it would be a naive way of thinking, to believe that we should be able to anticipate whats natural and what's not just from the experiences that we or others have had in the past.
Yes to a certain extent you can predict the behaviour of practically anything by looking at the past, but relying wholly on that to define the natural boundaries of something just seems like a restricted way of looking at the world to me.

And i wasnt saying that i believe God violates the natural laws, i was just saying that he might not be violating them at all because we cant know for sure what's natural and what's not.

And yes i agree that Arturo's opinion was perfectly reasonable.

[Arturo]

Personally, I am atheist, however that has nothing to do with the thread, I just wanted to make it clear. Now, I have a question for Christian people. If Jesus' body was found, would you cease to believe in him?

I wouldn't. I don't care whether he physically died or resurrected. I do care that he has defeated death. Even if all that the Apostles saw was just a vision, and Jesus had not phyiscally come from teh deads, that wouldn't make Christianism false. Faith can't rely on objective events.

If you want to understand God from a philosophical point of view, you should take into account some points: 1) Science cannot prove God's existence because God is over any experience, and experimental sicence is completely based in experience. Only metaphysics, philosophy's most important division, can study God.

And theology. You forget about that one.

2) Philosophy is a science, probably the most solid one as it is completely based on reason, there is no experimenting.

Philosophy is NOT a science, because tehre is no experimenting. Sciences are based on experimentation, by definition:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Of course, Maths and Logic aren't a science either, because you can't experiment them, they are a series of autoevident axioms.

And you must remember something: just because you don't understand something, because it goes agaionst what you think is reason, that doesn't have to be false. If you find it illogical, for example, that God is one and three, taht doesn't mean that is false, it just means you don't understand it.

Human reason is not absolute. That makes philosophy very inexact, because our capacity of reasoning is limited.

3) Therefore, the only way we can scientifically discuss about God's existence is using philosophy. These are some of the conclusions that philosophy has made: 4) The only rule is that God can do whatever he wants. 5) We will never be able to understand God.

We cannot use philosphy to know whether God exist, because God is, by definition, infinite. And our capacity to reason is very far from infinite. You can't prove that God exists, or that he doesn't. All teh so-called proofs of God's existance (St Thomas' five ways, Descartes, demonstration....) have been found to have either falacies, or be based on false premises.

6) Immanuel Kant, possibly the most important philosopher who has ever lived, demonstrated that it is impossible to philosophically prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yet, he proposed his existance, just how he proposed that of free will exists, and that there is some sort of after-life. He doesn't prove those exist, but say that they MUST exist, so that the morals might exist.

As you can see, I have enough reasons for thinking that the disucussion above is pointless.

All philosophical discussions are per se pointless, so...

[Fyxe]

And theology. You forget about that one.

When studying theology, you have to regularly make the assumption that God exists. You don't have to believe, but you have to assume. Therefore, it's a biased standpoint, and not adequate for studying the truth behind a 'God'.

If you find it illogical, for example, that God is one and three, taht doesn't mean that is false, it just means you don't understand it.

That's assuming it's correct, which you should not assume. Therefore it can be illogical and perfectly well understood, if it's not correct.

We cannot use philosphy to know whether God exist, because God is, by definition, infinite.

Only because a book says so, it doesn't necessarily make it true. It's possible that nothing is infinite.

He doesn't prove those exist, but say that they MUST exist, so that the morals might exist.

Morals can exist even with the lack of free will and afterlife. Morals are just labels that human beings have placed on things based on knowledge, experience and instinct, and are not *actually* set in stone.

[Arturo]

That's assuming it's correct, which you should not assume. Therefore it can be illogical and perfectly well understood, if it's not correct.

But you can't say it is incorrect either. You just can accept it or reject it. That's it. It's all a matter of faith.

Only because a book says so, it doesn't necessarily make it true. It's possible that nothing is infinite.

Then, we wouldn't be speaking about the same God. Because God, in XXI English is, by definition an infinte being.

I am going to give you an example: You say someone is sensible. I say he/she isn't, because in Spanish sensible means "sensitive", and that person isn't sensitive. I would ask you, why does sensible have to mean that? You wouldn't be able to give a rational reason. But it is adopted by convention. It means taht by definition.

If you want that word to mean something different to what it means to most English speakers, go ahead.

Morals can exist even with the lack of free will and afterlife. Morals are just labels that human beings have placed on things based on knowledge, experience and instinct, and are not *actually* set in stone.

I was speaking about what Kant says. And Kant's moral is rational and set in stone.

[Fyxe]

I was saying that the book might be, well, wrong. Not that the definition of the word is wrong.

[Arturo]

Of course it might be wrong. But it might be right, as well

[Vertiboy]

I don't think that we can automatically say that it is truly Jesus' tomb. Christianity did (and still does) have many enemies. It is just a tomb with his name on it and a dead body. Anyone who hates Christianity could just as easily make a fake tomb. I am not saying that it isn't him, I'm just saying that we can't just jump to conclusions.

[Doopliss]

Arturo wrote:

I wouldn't. I don't care whether he physically died or resurrected. I do care that he has defeated death. Even if all that the Apostles saw was just a vision, and Jesus had not phyiscally come from teh deads, that wouldn't make Christianism false. Faith can't rely on objective events.

Good! You are a real Christian!

Arturo wrote:

And theology. You forget about that one.

I was talking about entirely rational methods. Theology gets help from the Revelation, metaphysics from reason.

Arturo wrote:

Philosophy is NOT a science, because tehre is no experimenting. Sciences are based on experimentation, by definition

That's the common definition, I would rather say the definition for experimental science. However, Aristotle and philosophy define a science as "the real knowledge of things by their causes", therefore making philosophy a science.

Arturo wrote:

And you must remember something: just because you don't understand something, because it goes agaionst what you think is reason, that doesn't have to be false. If you find it illogical, for example, that God is one and three, taht doesn't mean that is false, it just means you don't understand it.

Human reason is not absolute. That makes philosophy very inexact, because our capacity of reasoning is limited.


Please see at what is written below.

Arturo wrote:

Yet, he proposed his existance, just how he proposed that of free will exists, and that there is some sort of after-life. He doesn't prove those exist, but say that they MUST exist, so that the morals might exist.
He may have been wrong in that point, as Jean Paul Sartre tried to prove it later, does not he? Some philosophers are good at some areas but not so good at others.

Arturo wrote:

All philosophical discussions are per se pointless, so...

I'd rather say that the forum is not prepared enough to discuss any topic involving philosophy, in other words, it is pointless to bring this topic to Legends Alliance. Please do not misintepret my words for elitism. I am only saying that this kind of discussion needs the people to have some aquaintance with phílosophy, and the majority of the population is not interested enough in philosophy. It is like trying to discuss physics with arunma, we do not have enough knowledge to do so.

Edited by Doopliss, 24 March 2007 - 08:05 PM.

[Ransom]

I was saying that the book might be, well, wrong. Not that the definition of the word is wrong.

i think youre missing his point here.
He's saying that if you refer to 'God' at all, you are referring to an infinite being. If you say he is not an infinite being, then he is not God by definition.
Thus if God exists, he is infinite.

[vodkamaru]

Thus if God exists, he is infinite.

That's such a pointless statement though. It's like saying "if unicorns exist, they have a horn on their head." All you're doing is decribing how you've defined something.

[Reflectionist]

I wouldn't. I don't care whether he physically died or resurrected. I do care that he has defeated death. Even if all that the Apostles saw was just a vision, and Jesus had not phyiscally come from teh deads, that wouldn't make Christianism false. Faith can't rely on objective events.

Yes it would. If it didn't then Christianity is nothing more than remoralized Judaism.

That's all I have to say.

You guys sound like a bunch of bass and guitar players discussing drum techniques.

I mean, forgive me, but I find it odd how some people can claim to be Christians when their beliefs don't even match the very basics of what Christianity is. :-(

After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. -Acts 1:3-4

He ate with them? Sounds like a purely spiritual being to me. I don't know that I could eat if I didn't have a physical body.

Those are outlined in the Bible, which I see no reference to. And if you don't believe the Bible is 100% right, then how can it be 1% right in your eyes? If you don't believe it, you don't believe it.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. -Revelation 3:15-16

Edited by Reflectionist, 25 March 2007 - 02:05 PM.

[arunma]

Yes it would. If it didn't then Christianity is nothing more than remoralized Judaism.

That's all I have to say.

You guys sound like a bunch of bass and guitar players discussing drum techniques.

I mean, forgive me, but I find it odd how some people can claim to be Christians when their beliefs don't even match the very basics of what Christianity is. :-(

I agree completely. If you don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you're probably not going to find very much appeal in Christianity. All of the doctrines of Christianity are based on the resurrection of Jesus. The moral teachings can be found in practically any religion. It is the resurrection of Jesus, and the promise of a future resurrection of all the saints, which distinguishes Christianity from any other religion. Take away the soteriological doctrines, and you rob Christianity of its essence.

[Veteran]

I'm glad someone pointed out that Christianity without Jesus as the son of God is Judaism.

[Reflectionist]

I agree completely. If you don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you're probably not going to find very much appeal in Christianity. All of the doctrines of Christianity are based on the resurrection of Jesus. The moral teachings can be found in practically any religion. It is the resurrection of Jesus, and the promise of a future resurrection of all the saints, which distinguishes Christianity from any other religion. Take away the soteriological doctrines, and you rob Christianity of its essence.

I'm glad someone pointed out that Christianity without Jesus as the son of God is Judaism.

Awesome! I was almost scared of coming back to 'the whole anti Christian You're a close-minded egotist' argument.... thanks for lifting my spirits, guys!

[Ransom]

That's such a pointless statement though. It's like saying "if unicorns exist, they have a horn on their head." All you're doing is decribing how you've defined something.

It wasnt pointless as i was using it in my argument.
Fyxe basically said before:
"How do you know that God is infinite? he may not be."
Which is as pointless as saying if Unicorns existed they may not have horns.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I dont really see how that contradicts my statement.

What was your statement again?

I think that it would be a naive way of thinking, to believe that we should be able to anticipate whats natural and what's not just from the experiences that we or others have had in the past.
Yes to a certain extent you can predict the behaviour of practically anything by looking at the past, but relying wholly on that to define the natural boundaries of something just seems like a restricted way of looking at the world to me.

But it would be ridiculous to not look at the world like that. You do it everytime you decide to drink some water or everytime you sit down. The water has never poisoned you before, so why should it now? The chair has never violently maimed you before, so why should it now? The Sun has always risen before, so why shouldn't it now? Obviously, it doesn't always apply, but why should you think it doesn't if you have no reason to believe otherwise?

Arturo's statement is in accordance with Occam's Razor. To go with your statement against his statement is to add complications that might not be necessary. So my argument is that the alternative position to Arturo's statement is not very likely. That's not to say it isn't impossible, it just isn't very likely.

[Fyxe]

It wasnt pointless as i was using it in my argument.
Fyxe basically said before:
"How do you know that God is infinite? he may not be."
Which is as pointless as saying if Unicorns existed they may not have horns.

I didn't say that. I said the book might be wrong. I made no assumption about the existence of a god.

[Arturo]

I agree completely. If you don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you're probably not going to find very much appeal in Christianity. All of the doctrines of Christianity are based on the resurrection of Jesus. The moral teachings can be found in practically any religion. It is the resurrection of Jesus, and the promise of a future resurrection of all the saints, which distinguishes Christianity from any other religion. Take away the soteriological doctrines, and you rob Christianity of its essence.

This is St Thomas' problem again. You don't have to have any physical proofs tp believe. No matter what you see, you hav eto believe he heas resusrrected and that he's the Son of God. Even if his body is found. Because what we see and touch may not be the truth. If you are a Christian, you have to have FAITH that Jesus has resurrected, even without physical proofs.

This is what I think.

[Reflectionist]

This is St Thomas' problem again. You don't have to have any physical proofs tp believe. No matter what you see, you hav eto believe he heas resusrrected and that he's the Son of God. Even if his body is found. Because what we see and touch may not be the truth. If you are a Christian, you have to have FAITH that Jesus has resurrected, even without physical proofs.

This is what I think.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

But, since Jesus' body hasn't been found, and it's been looked for for a VERY VERY long time... I don't think there's any reason to believe it will be found.

And theres a very simple reason for this that you blatanly don't want to believe.

It doesn't exist.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean it in a degrading way... But I don't believe you're Christian, since you look for reasons that what the Bible (what Christians believe as the word of God) isn't right.

The Bible says that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead.

If you don't believe that, then you don't believe the Bible, which would mean you don't believe in Christ, which is what "CHRISTianity" is all about.


So let me be the first to welcome you to Judaism.

Edited by Reflectionist, 27 March 2007 - 06:30 PM.

[wisp]

YOu've got a rather narrow view of what can qualify as "Christianity." Many Christians believe the Bible is not to be taken literally in many cases. Some Gnostic Christians even believe that much or all of the New Testament is meant to be taken in parable form. That doesn't mean you or I need to agree with that, but it is just as valid of a belief system as those based upon literal interpretation of the Bible.