Why do you believe that 'your' God is the correct one?

[Wiseman2]

On 12/15/2020 at 1:20 AM, Watercolors said:

. We talked a lot about physics, astronomy, and sometimes atheism and sometimes Christianity.

😂 Ok, so. Did god create the universe or did the universe create god 🤔

Anyway I will be tracking Santa on NORAD .🎅🦌

https://www.noradsanta.org/

Edited December 16, 2020 by Wiseman2

[Trail Blazer]

20 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

😂 Ok, so. Did god create the universe or did the universe create god 🤔

This is a pretty simple question to answer for an atheist.  It does not propose anything like the paradoxical chicken or egg scenario.  However, I think you know the answer already...

 

[Watercolors]

4 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

😂 Ok, so. Did god create the universe or did the universe create god 🤔

Anyway I will be tracking Santa on NORAD .🎅🦌

https://www.noradsanta.org/

Nope and nope. Man created god. The universe created itself.

[Allupinnit]

4 hours ago, Watercolors said:

Nope and nope. Man created god. The universe created itself.

But from what?  When you think of the billions upon billions of things that had to go exactly RANDOMLY right, and then have the ability to copy itself over and over is mind boggling to me.  

FTR I don't think creation and evolution are at odds with each other.  Just because God set something in motion doesn't mean things don't acclimate.  Look at what we've been able to do with dog breeds in just a few short years.

You have greater faith in accidents, coincidences, and lucky chances than I ever could.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Allupinnit

[Trail Blazer]

1 hour ago, Allupinnit said:

But from what?  When you think of the billions upon billions of things that had to go exactly RANDOMLY right, and then have the ability to copy itself over and over is mind boggling to me.  

FTR I don't think creation and evolution are at odds with each other.  Just because God set something in motion doesn't mean things don't acclimate.  Look at what we've been able to do with dog breeds in just a few short years.

You have greater faith in accidents, coincidences, and lucky chances than I ever could.

Do you ask that from a position of never having attempted to understand how the Big Bang worked, or do you ask it from a position of challenging what is currently understood about the Big Bang.

So many Christian or religious adherents say things like, "you're trying to tell me the world the universe came from nothing" as if the things in the bible are more plausible, yet when challenged on their knowledge of it, say they don't need to know about it because it's "all BS."

Which camp do you sit in?  And if so, and you do happen to possess a basic grasp of the concept, why do you refute the scientific explanation around it?  Just saying "because it's not in the Bible" doesn't wash, either.

[Allupinnit]

2 minutes ago, Trail Blazer said:

Do you ask that from a position of never having attempted to understand how the Big Bang worked, or do you ask it from a position of challenging what is currently understood about the Big Bang.

So many Christian or religious adherents say things like, "you're trying to tell me the world the universe came from nothing" as if the things in the bible are more plausible, yet when challenged on their knowledge of it, say they don't need to know about it because it's "all BS."

Which camp do you sit in?  And if so, and you do happen to possess a basic grasp of the concept, why do you refute the scientific explanation around it?  Just saying "because it's not in the Bible" doesn't wash, either.

The Big Bang is a theory, not scientific fact.  You also forget that I was agnostic once, and I've never once told anyone "because it's not in the Bible."  I think a lot of the OT is metaphorical, as Jews learned through story-telling and parables.  God/the authors of the OT were never really concerned about the mechanics of it, but the WHY and THE WHO.  Again, we have to interpret the Bible through the eyes of the people who wrote it.

It's simply worth noting that taking the Big Bang theory as scientific fact, does also take faith.  I am going to bow out of this thread now, as I find your condescending tone not really worth entertaining.

Good luck in your journey, wherever it takes you.

[Trail Blazer]

22 minutes ago, Allupinnit said:

The Big Bang is a theory, not scientific fact.  You also forget that I was agnostic once, and I've never once told anyone "because it's not in the Bible."  I think a lot of the OT is metaphorical, as Jews learned through story-telling and parables.  God/the authors of the OT were never really concerned about the mechanics of it, but the WHY and THE WHO.  Again, we have to interpret the Bible through the eyes of the people who wrote it.

It's simply worth noting that taking the Big Bang theory as scientific fact, does also take faith.  I am going to bow out of this thread now, as I find your condescending tone not really worth entertaining.

Good luck in your journey, wherever it takes you.

You might want to brush up on your understanding of what defines "scientific theory."  So many people mistake theory for hypothesis.

A scientific theory is something which can be tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method.  I don't require faith to subscribe to it.

If new evidence for how the universe was created comes to light, where it requires a complete re-evaluation of the Big Bang, then I'd welcome the new findings.

I wish for nothing more than the facts, up to and including science proving the existence of an almighty deity.  I'll pray to him when I know he's real.  I won't have to have faith then.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Trail Blazer

[Justanaverageguy]

6 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Do you ask that from a position of never having attempted to understand how the Big Bang worked, or do you ask it from a position of challenging what is currently understood about the Big Bang.

So many Christian or religious adherents say things like, "you're trying to tell me the world the universe came from nothing" as if the things in the bible are more plausible, yet when challenged on their knowledge of it, say they don't need to know about it because it's "all BS."

Which camp do you sit in?  And if so, and you do happen to possess a basic grasp of the concept, why do you refute the scientific explanation around it?  Just saying "because it's not in the Bible" doesn't wash, either.

Would it surprise you to learn that the scientific theory for the Big Bang was created and published by - Georges Lemaître - who was a devout Catholic Priest who believed the theory he published was in perfect alignment with Christian theology and stated this was part of his inspiration for where it came from. He also happened to be a professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He along with Edwin Hubble created the Hubble–Lemaître law and also Hubble Constant which explains and measures the expanding universe and recession of near by galaxies which was provided evidence to support Lemaître's theory on the Big Bang. The idea that theists refute the scientific concept of the big bang - when it was a thiest who literally created it ..... doesn't really make sense. What theists refute is atheists using this as a proof that God doesn't exist. Atheists often try to use things like the big bang theory as some kind of "Ace" up their sleeves to say this theory and God as mutually exclusive. Like one disproves the other even in spite of the fact the inventor of the theory himself believed it was not only compatible with - but part of the inspiration for the original hypothesis / theory. 

For me this is very similar to the concept of Evolution. In my discussions Atheists often they will try to force this into a false dichotomy position. Saying that Evolution and Creation are incompatible and the existence of Evolution disproves creation, any type of intelligent creator or intelligent design. Its all "random". For me nothing could be further from the truth. These are to me - like a hand and a glove. They go perfectly together. They are synergistically intertwined with each other like Yin and Yang. What is the most intelligent system a designer could use to create a living organism that has to exist in a dynamic and changing environment ? One that can adapt and evolve to changing conditions it encounters. 

If we as humans got to the intelligence level we were going to try and create "life" you know for sure we would copy and resuse the concept of evolutiuon. We already do when we write software code for artifical intelligence AI - which is kind of like a really primitive rudimentary example of this. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Justanaverageguy

[Trail Blazer]

11 minutes ago, Justanaverageguy said:

Would it surprise you to learn that the scientific theory for the Big Bang was created and published by - Georges Lemaître - who was a devout Catholic Priest who believed the theory he published was in perfect alignment with Christian theology and stated this was part of his inspiration for where it came from. He also happened to be a professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He along with Edwin Hubble created the Hubble–Lemaître law and also Hubble Constant which explains and measures the expanding universe and recession of near by galaxies which was provided evidence to support Lemaître's theory on the Big Bang. The idea that theists refute the scientific concept of the big bang - when it was a thiest who literally created it ..... doesn't really make sense. What theists refute is atheists using this as a proof that God doesn't exist. Atheists often try to use things like the big bang theory as some kind of "Ace" up their sleeves to say this theory and God as mutually exclusive. Like one disproves the other even in spite of the fact the inventor of the theory himself believed it was not only compatible with - but part of the inspiration for the original hypothesis / theory. 

For me this is very similar to the concept of Evolution. In my discussions Atheists often they will try to force this into a false dichotomy position. Saying that Evolution and Creation are incompatible and the existence of Evolution disproves creation, any type of intelligent creator or intelligent design. Its all "random". For me nothing could be further from the truth. These are to me - like a hand and a glove. They go perfectly together. They are synergistically intertwined with each other like Yin and Yang. What is the most intelligent system a designer could use to create a living organism that has to exist in a dynamic and changing environment ? One that can adapt and evolve to changing conditions it encounters. 

If we as humans got to the intelligence level we were going to try and create "life" you know for sure we would copy and resuse the concept of evolutiuon. We already do when we write software code for artifical intelligence AI - which is kind of like a really primitive rudimentary example of this. 

I know about the history of the BB.  If only most theists were open to science like Lemaître was, it wouldn't seem so much like it were atheists using it as an "ace up their sleeve."

So, you're pretty much in the camp that subdcribes to any scientific discovery is just proving how god designed the universe?  Look, that's a lot better than many theists who are all-out science deniers and actually believe the creation myth as proposed in Genesis.

Where do you sit on humanity evolving from a common ancestor shared with modern day chimps?  I see no reference in the bible at all to this, yet the evidence is overwhelming that there was a divergence in the species which resulted in the two different paths of evolution.

I also do not recall any reference to Neanderthals, or any extinct subspecies of archaic humans in the bible, yet we have fossilized proof of their existence.  It seems a little strange an omission, wouldn't you say?  I could go on, like dinosaurs, but hey, feel free to address any or all of these omissions at your own discretion.

[Justanaverageguy]

1 hour ago, Trail Blazer said:

I know about the history of the BB.  If only most theists were open to science like Lemaître was, it wouldn't seem so much like it were atheists using it as an "ace up their sleeve."

So, you're pretty much in the camp that subdcribes to any scientific discovery is just proving how god designed the universe?  Look, that's a lot better than many theists who are all-out science deniers and actually believe the creation myth as proposed in Genesis.

They are - this is the point. Almost all Christians I know are very open to science. I have doctor friends, physicist friends, astrophysicist fitness,  biochemists, IT and technology, chemical engineer friends ... All of whom are theists. The concept theists are anti science is simply false it doesn't hold any water at all. Popular atheist preachers  like Dawkins use "extreme" fundamentalist minorities who interpret all biblical stories in a strictly literal sense to try and paint all theists as people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and deny all science. Have you ever actually met someone who actually thinks this ? Truthfully. Beause I'm Christian and am involved in a huge diverse community of believers and I can honestly say hand on heart - Ive never in my life met one. At least not one who expressed that belief to me. It's a straw man argument. Or at best a low hanging fruit argument. Let's find the most extreme beliefs held by anyone who is a theist and use that as the argument against theism. Let's use the 1% extreme as a representation of the 99% rational thinkers. It's stupifyingly dumb and deliberately deceptive. It makes my head hurt having to even listen to it. Can't we move the conversation to a higher level ? To a more intellectual and respectful pursuit of truth. Theists I know all believe in the big bang and evolution but they will argue against the way atheists use them against them  - almost like a knife in a fight instead of a tool to better understand the world and how it came to be.

If you want to look at history and the greatest scientists who ever had an impact on modern society .... It's like a who's who of theists.

Newton - devout theist

Galileo - devout theist

Kepler - devout theist

Father's of electromagnetsim - Maxwell and Farraday - devout theists ( Farray was an ordained decon). 

Hell even the guys credited as being the prime inventors of the scientific method ... Francis Bacon and Descartes both devout theists. I'm just scratching the surface here. I've already given you the stats on the nobel prize. It's something like 93% theists. 86% Judo Christian theists. The stats don't back up the argument that theists are anti science.

1 hour ago, Trail Blazer said:

Where do you sit on humanity evolving from a common ancestor shared with modern day chimps?  I see no reference in the bible at all to this, yet the evidence is overwhelming that there was a divergence in the species which resulted in the two different paths of evolution.

I think it's highly likely. That's what the current evidence points to. But again - I don't see this conflicting with my beliefs in God. 

 I also don't believe our historical understanding of biological history is even close to complete so while my beliefs currently align with the broad teaching of evolution and I think it's broadly correct - I think we still have a ways to go to fully understand certain aspects of that process. Example being how the really large and significant mutations which tend to happen very rapidly in a short space of time occur to spawn new species. I think the theory is broadly correct but we still have more to understand and learn which is the same for most of science.

The bible isn't a "science book". It's a book on the restoration of mankind over a huge span of time. From a primitive, violent, disfunctional and broken group - back to being a healthy, vibrant intelligent and prosperous group. That's the point of the book. To explain why we were such a mess in the past - and lead us back to the right path that would restore prosperity, intelligence, peace, happiness.  

Our points of view come down to you think the modern advanced age of greatly increased prosperity and intelligence has disproved the bible .... where as I think its the result of it.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Justanaverageguy

[Wiseman2]

2 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

I also do not recall any reference to Neanderthals, or any extinct subspecies of archaic humans in the bible, yet we have fossilized proof of their existence.  

They didn't have DNA testing then☺️.

*The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background."

[Allupinnit]

I know I said I'd bow out, but @Justanaverageguy makes really excellent points.  I think the similarities between us and other species points to the fact that we have the same Creator, not necessarily that one became another over time.

What also is curious to me is how humans have the space of consciousness to appreciate and create art, music, and other things not necessary for our survival.  

[Trail Blazer]

17 hours ago, Justanaverageguy said:

They are - this is the point. Almost all Christians I know are very open to science. I have doctor friends, physicist friends, astrophysicist fitness,  biochemists, IT and technology, chemical engineer friends ... All of whom are theists. The concept theists are anti science is simply false it doesn't hold any water at all. Popular atheist preachers  like Dawkins use "extreme" fundamentalist minorities who interpret all biblical stories in a strictly literal sense to try and paint all theists as people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and deny all science. Have you ever actually met someone who actually thinks this ? Truthfully. Beause I'm Christian and am involved in a huge diverse community of believers and I can honestly say hand on heart - Ive never in my life met one. At least not one who expressed that belief to me. It's a straw man argument. Or at best a low hanging fruit argument. Let's find the most extreme beliefs held by anyone who is a theist and use that as the argument against theism. Let's use the 1% extreme as a representation of the 99% rational thinkers. It's stupifyingly dumb and deliberately deceptive. It makes my head hurt having to even listen to it. Can't we move the conversation to a higher level ? To a more intellectual and respectful pursuit of truth. Theists I know all believe in the big bang and evolution but they will argue against the way atheists use them against them  - almost like a knife in a fight instead of a tool to better understand the world and how it came to be.

If you want to look at history and the greatest scientists who ever had an impact on modern society .... It's like a who's who of theists.

Newton - devout theist

Galileo - devout theist

Kepler - devout theist

Father's of electromagnetsim - Maxwell and Farraday - devout theists ( Farray was an ordained decon). 

Hell even the guys credited as being the prime inventors of the scientific method ... Francis Bacon and Descartes both devout theists. I'm just scratching the surface here. I've already given you the stats on the nobel prize. It's something like 93% theists. 86% Judo Christian theists. The stats don't back up the argument that theists are anti science.

I think it's highly likely. That's what the current evidence points to. But again - I don't see this conflicting with my beliefs in God. 

 I also don't believe our historical understanding of biological history is even close to complete so while my beliefs currently align with the broad teaching of evolution and I think it's broadly correct - I think we still have a ways to go to fully understand certain aspects of that process. Example being how the really large and significant mutations which tend to happen very rapidly in a short space of time occur to spawn new species. I think the theory is broadly correct but we still have more to understand and learn which is the same for most of science.

The bible isn't a "science book". It's a book on the restoration of mankind over a huge span of time. From a primitive, violent, disfunctional and broken group - back to being a healthy, vibrant intelligent and prosperous group. That's the point of the book. To explain why we were such a mess in the past - and lead us back to the right path that would restore prosperity, intelligence, peace, happiness.  

Our points of view come down to you think the modern advanced age of greatly increased prosperity and intelligence has disproved the bible .... where as I think its the result of it.

I'll grant you Kepler, who believed he was doing God's work by using science to prove it.  That belief, in itself, is subsumed by the greater scientific works which have progressively rendered religion redundant.

Newton and Galileo, however...

There's a lot of conjecture about those two.  Galileo was almost killed because of his views which didn't align with religious views at the time.  It was pretty hard to be an atheist in 16th century Rome.

As for Newton, his level of religiosity can be debated.  Once again, to be an atheist in the 16th century would have been suicide, much like it would be political suicide to be anything other than a Chrisitian in American politics.

[Trail Blazer]

10 hours ago, Allupinnit said:

I know I said I'd bow out, but @Justanaverageguy makes really excellent points.  I think the similarities between us and other species points to the fact that we have the same Creator, not necessarily that one became another over time.

What also is curious to me is how humans have the space of consciousness to appreciate and create art, music, and other things not necessary for our survival.  

Based on what?  Is this you effectively saying that evolution is false?

[Justanaverageguy]

2 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Newton and Galileo, however...

There's a lot of conjecture about those two.  Galileo was almost killed because of his views which didn't align with religious views at the time.  It was pretty hard to be an atheist in 16th century Rome.

As for Newton, his level of religiosity can be debated.  Once again, to be an atheist in the 16th century would have been suicide, much like it would be political suicide to be anything other than a Chrisitian in American politics.

Newton ? You are kidding right ? Newton ?!? I would go as far as to call Newton religiously fanatically. He literally spent less time on his scientific studies then he did on his theological ones. You would be hard pressed to find a more theistic Scientist in any period of history. Before he moved into science and mathematics he was going to be an Anglican Priest. When he died all his catalogued manuscripts were collated and published. He wrote significantly more on Christian theology and study of the bible then he did on science. He was one of the most devoutly religious scientists you're ever likely to come across. He wrote extensive treatise on Christian theology some of which were deemed slightly controversial (maybe this is what your referring to regarding controversy) simply due to the way he considered the relationship between God - Jesus which has some difference with the Roman Catholic view at the time. But its beyond doubt Newton was a devout Christian theist who saw God as an intelligent, powerful, omnipresent Being who governs all. His theistic beliefs were deeply intertwined and noted with in his scientific works. His most famous paper - and one of the most famous scientific papers ever published - Principia Mathematica - contains many direct references to God.

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God. When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.”

If your interested you can go and read his detailed analysis of biblical prophecies of The book of Daniel and The Book of Revelation where he tries to calculate the date of the second coming of Christ. Isaac Newton - Observations upon Prophecies Daniel-Revelation. (if your interested - he said Prophecy could never be known for sure but he predicted the most likely return date for Christ was 2034 or 2060). These are the types of things Newton wrote about .... and your saying its debatable he's a theist ? If you do a quick amazon search you can also find many other various theological papers he wrote.

Also Galileo - again no controversy that he was a Christian theist. He was staunchly devout. That is literally not up for debate. There is no controversy he believed in God and was a Christian. His personal diaries and writtings have been published post death where he confirmed this repeatedly up until his death bed. He is held up sometimes in these debates purely  as an example because he was part of the Copernican revolution which was a controversial period in science/religion. He underwent some punishment (House arrest) due his views conflicting with the popular understanding at the time that the sun revolved around the earth. Atheist like Dawkins will use this as an example of "Religion stifling science" which I'll admit in part it was - even though it happened roughly 500 years ago. No one claims Galileo was atheist. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Justanaverageguy

[Justanaverageguy]

3 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Based on what?  Is this you effectively saying that evolution is false?

No - no one here that I've seen is saying this. Can we try to move the arguments away from regurgitating Dawkins "straw man" arguments which no one is saying  - and actually listen to what real present day Theists believe and address their real views and arguments. Lift the conversation higher to an actual intelligent debate of what people really think otherwise our conversation serves no purpose.

The Bible is not a scientific text book. Lets put a full stop on that one. It says God created the fish, the birds, the animals, the plants and humans. It says God made man to rule over and control and order the earth. It doesn't tell you the mechanics of how that process of creation occured. It literally doesn't care about that.  Its concerned with the who - not the how. Its also written at a time where it is talking to a primitive people in a primitive time and explaining to them what they are doing wrong ethically and morally - and why the world they inhabit sucks so much. "The fall of man" is the central theme of the first book of the bible. It is not a book on the creation of man and how they came to be. Thats not the issue its concerned with. Its concern is to talk to a primitive people and tell them what they need to do for their life conditions to improve. This is its point of the bible. 

But if you want to know how I as a theist think about creation. I think about it this way. When we humans create something complex and detailed how do we do it in real life ? We usually start with a simple more primitive version of it. Then over time we improve it with successive and repetitive iterations to improve the complexity,  quality and performance. A simple example might be your computer operating system. If you run windows it stated as DOS. A black and white terminal console in the 1980s. Through successive and repetitive improvements and additions it evolved into a graphical user interface with windows 3.1 in around 1992. Then from that primitive GUI version Windows 3.1 it had progressively gone through multiple versions Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 8 and finally to the modern present day Windows 10 which now has fancy touch screens and virtual reality integration and a slew of other crazy advanced technical features. 

Though DOS and Windows 10 share the same "DNA" they are scarecly recognizable to each other.  This is how I understand creation of complex and intelligent systems occurs. Evolution. Now obviously in biology things are far more advanced and the word evolution doesn't automatically mean there is someone driving the evolition. There is the concept of survival of the fittest. Evolution through natural selection. 

The question is do you think this Evolution is purely 100% driven by random occurrences and natural selection. Did the creation of life happen purely "by random chance". Then did a single celled organism diverge and spawn into literally billions of different life forms - making it all the way from one cell to a multi trillion celled human being purely through "random mutation" and natural selection. To become the most complex and advanced "technology" on our planet today - even in spite of our own rudimentary creations efforts. Or was their also a high power - an intelligent involved in this evolutionary process. 

This is a the real debate and difference between an atheist and theists views today. Atheists believe the former that it was purely random and driven by natural selection - theists believe the later. That it is a combination of both. With a higher power involved in this process.  

Edited December 18, 2020 by Justanaverageguy

[Trail Blazer]

1 hour ago, Justanaverageguy said:

Newton ? You are kidding right ? Newton ?!? I would go as far as to call Newton religiously fanatically. He literally spent less time on his scientific studies then he did on his theological ones. You would be hard pressed to find a more theistic Scientist in any period of history. Before he moved into science and mathematics he was going to be an Anglican Priest. When he died all his catalogued manuscripts were collated and published. He wrote significantly more on Christian theology and study of the bible then he did on science. He was one of the most devoutly religious scientists you're ever likely to come across. He wrote extensive treatise on Christian theology some of which were deemed slightly controversial (maybe this is what your referring to regarding controversy) simply due to the way he considered the relationship between God - Jesus which has some difference with the Roman Catholic view at the time. But its beyond doubt Newton was a devout Christian theist who saw God as an intelligent, powerful, omnipresent Being who governs all. His theistic beliefs were deeply intertwined and noted with in his scientific works. His most famous paper - and one of the most famous scientific papers ever published - Principia Mathematica - contains many direct references to God.

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God. When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.”

If your interested you can go and read his detailed analysis of biblical prophecies of The book of Daniel and The Book of Revelation where he tries to calculate the date of the second coming of Christ. Isaac Newton - Observations upon Prophecies Daniel-Revelation. (if your interested - he said Prophecy could never be known for sure but he predicted the most likely return date for Christ was 2034 or 2060). These are the types of things Newton wrote about .... and your saying its debatable he's a theist ? If you do a quick amazon search you can also find many other various theological papers he wrote.

Also Galileo - again no controversy that he was a Christian theist. He was staunchly devout. That is literally not up for debate. There is no controversy he believed in God and was a Christian. His personal diaries and writtings have been published post death where he confirmed this repeatedly up until his death bed. He is held up sometimes in these debates purely  as an example because he was part of the Copernican revolution which was a controversial period in science/religion. He underwent some punishment (House arrest) due his views conflicting with the popular understanding at the time that the sun revolved around the earth. Atheist like Dawkins will use this as an example of "Religion stifling science" which I'll admit in part it was - even though it happened roughly 500 years ago. No one claims Galileo was atheist. 

Newton was undoubtedly Christian.  However his religiosity didn't align with some doctrine and he didn't believe in the holy trinity.  He hated the Catholic church.

Galileo had three children out of wedlock.  If he was a believer, he was certainly a bit of a rogue.  Like I said, it was a little hard back then to actually come out and admit you were atheist.  That's a death sentence.

In any case, debating the religiosity of people in the 16th century is analogous to comparing the sexual preferences of people in the same era.  You could only be one thing or you'd be killed.

Nobody admitted they were homosexual, but that doesn't mean they weren't.  Just like Galileo would never admit if he were not devout.  Nobody will know for sure, but there's enough evidence to question his religiosity.

[Trail Blazer]

47 minutes ago, Justanaverageguy said:

No - no one here that I've seen is saying this. Can we try to move the arguments away from regurgitating Dawkins "straw man" arguments which no one is saying  - and actually listen to what real present day Theists believe and address their real views and arguments. Lift the conversation higher to an actual intelligent debate of what people really think otherwise our conversation serves no purpose.

The Bible is not a scientific text book. Lets put a full stop on that one. It says God created the fish, the birds, the animals, the plants and humans. It says God made man to rule over and control and order the earth. It doesn't tell you the mechanics of how that process of creation occured. It literally doesn't care about that.  Its concerned with the who - not the how. Its also written at a time where it is talking to a primitive people in a primitive time and explaining to them what they are doing wrong ethically and morally - and why the world they inhabit sucks so much. "The fall of man" is the central theme of the first book of the bible. It is not a book on the creation of man and how they came to be. Thats not the issue its concerned with. Its concern is to talk to a primitive people and tell them what they need to do for their life conditions to improve. This is its point of the bible. 

But if you want to know how I as a theist think about creation. I think about it this way. When we humans create something complex and detailed how do we do it in real life ? We usually start with a simple more primitive version of it. Then over time we improve it with successive and repetitive iterations to improve the complexity,  quality and performance. A simple example might be your computer operating system. If you run windows it stated as DOS. A black and white terminal console in the 1980s. Through successive and repetitive improvements and additions it evolved into a graphical user interface with windows 3.1 in around 1992. Then from that primitive GUI version Windows 3.1 it had progressively gone through multiple versions Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 8 and finally to the modern present day Windows 10 which now has fancy touch screens and virtual reality integration and a slew of other crazy advanced technical features. 

Though DOS and Windows 10 share the same "DNA" they are scarecly recognizable to each other.  This is how I understand creation of complex and intelligent systems occurs. Evolution. Now obviously in biology things are far more advanced and the word evolution doesn't automatically mean there is someone driving the evolition. There is the concept of survival of the fittest. Evolution through natural selection. 

The question is do you think this Evolution is purely 100% driven by random occurrences and natural selection. Did the creation of life happen purely "by random chance". Then did a single celled organism diverge and spawn into literally billions of different life forms - making it all the way from one cell to a multi trillion celled human being purely through "random mutation" and natural selection. To become the most complex and advanced "technology" on our planet today - even in spite of our own rudimentary creations efforts. Or was their also a high power - an intelligent involved in this evolutionary process. 

This is a the real debate and difference between an atheist and theists views today. Atheists believe the former that it was purely random and driven by natural selection - theists believe the later. That it is a combination of both. With a higher power involved in this process.  

It's not a strawman argument.  I interpreted - literally - what the poster I quoted said.  They are free to respond and clarify what they meant.  However, my response was as a result of how I read their comment.

A strawman argument would be to create a whole lot of arguments which I never raised, and use them to try and bolster your point by seemingly refuting things I never said.

Sorry, bro, but some of your points have been classic examples of whataboutisms.  As much as I'm happy to discuss them, i.e. the religiosity of 16th century scientists, they hardly refute the premise of this thread.

[Justanaverageguy]

I was merely responding to you. You made the point repeatedly that theism and Christianity are anti scientific. But I showed you that history shows this to be clearly false and in fact the exact opposite of this.  The point was meant to make clear that the scientific revolution took place almost exclusively in Judochristian countries lead by judo Christian theists.  You claim faith impedes science - where as I claim the exact opposite. It was only adherence to Christian faith and ethics that made society stable and equitable enough for wide spread education and modern science to be birthed.

Christianity is the chicken which layed the modern Scientific egg you could say. Now you want to shoot the chicken because it's "anti egg". 🐔🐣 😂 If I'm wrong point me to the societies and faiths that produced similar ?

Judge a tree by its fruit. It's one of the most scientific statement you'll find. 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Justanaverageguy

[Trail Blazer]

9 minutes ago, Justanaverageguy said:

I was merely responding to you. You made the point repeatedly that theism and Christianity are anti scientific. But I showed you that history shows this to be clearly false and in fact the exact opposite of this.  The point was meant to make clear that the scientific revolution took place almost exclusively in Judochristian countries.  You claim faith impedes science - where as I claim the exact opposite. It was only adherence to Christian faith and ethics that made society stable and equitable enough for wide spread education and modern science to be birthed.

Christianity is the chicken which layed the modern Scientific egg you could say. Now you want to shoot the chicken. 🐔🐣 😂 If I'm wrong point me to the societies and faiths that produced similar ?

Judge a tree by its fruit. It's one of the most scientific statement you'll find. 

 

Point in case is Galileo, whose many efforts were impeded by religion.  Scientific advancement developed in spite of many encumberences faced by religion, not because of religion.

We're going around in circles asking me to point out which societies and faiths produced more than Christianity.  I'd already told you that based on your logic, you should convert to Judaism as it punches well above its weight.

 

[Justanaverageguy]

12 minutes ago, Trail Blazer said:

Point in case is Galileo, whose many efforts were impeded by religion.  Scientific advancement developed in spite of many encumberences faced by religion, not because of religion.

We're going around in circles asking me to point out which societies and faiths produced more than Christianity.  I'd already told you that based on your logic, you should convert to Judaism as it punches well above its weight.

 

You realise the entirety of Judaic teaching is included in Christianity ? That Jesus was Jewish right?  

But you are right at this point we are going round in circles so I think I will bow out of this topic as it doesn't seem anything more productive can be achieved.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Justanaverageguy

[Trail Blazer]

7 minutes ago, Justanaverageguy said:

You realise the entirety of Judaic teaching is included in Christianity ? That Jesus was Jewish right?  

But you are right at this point we are going round in circles so I think I will bow out of this topic as it doesn't seem anything more productive can be achieved.

Do Jews believe Jesus was God's son?  No, they don't even believe he was a prophet.  Their beliefs undermine Christianity's premise. 

Christianity is an evolution of Judaism.  Just don't expect the Jews to align with anything written in the New Testament.

Having said that, I have enjoyed reading your views and appreciate the effort you have put in to the discussion. 😊

[Allupinnit]

I think there is also a false narrative that people believe(d) out of fear.  Fear is the absolute worst motivator to do anything and I highly doubt such incredible contributions to humanity were born out of geniuses forced to believe a false narrative.  When I read the words of St Augustine I can feel his JOY leaping off the page:

St. Augustine of HippoI 

“Late have I loved you,” read on the Feast of St. Augustine, August 28, laments a man who did not finally yield to faith and baptism till his thirties, whose enthusiasm for the created things of this world held him back from their Creator. But now, having breathed the fragrance of God’s truth and beauty, he pants for God and burns for the peace that only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ can provide.

Late have I loved you, Beauty so ancient and so new, late have I loved you!

Lo, you were within,
but I outside, seeking there for you,
and upon the shapely things you have made
I rushed headlong – I, misshapen.
You were with me, but I was not with you.
They held me back far from you,
those things which would have no being,
were they not in you.

You called, shouted, broke through my deafness;
you flared, blazed, banished my blindness;
you lavished your fragrance, I gasped; and now I pant for you;
I tasted you, and now I hunger and thirst;
you touched me, and I burned for your peace.

I myself have experienced this inexplicable peace and nobody can ever explain away your testimony.

[Millennial]

Who cares?

Faith schools are comfortably the best performing schools in the UK. Countries with christian values offer the greatest quality of life.

Lose it, and it just starts getting replaced by other faith based behaviour (marxism atm, which has been a complete and utter disaster wherever implemented). So pick your poison.

[Hezza]

 

On 12/22/2020 at 8:28 AM, Millennial said:

Who cares?

Faith schools are comfortably the best performing schools in the UK. Countries with christian values offer the greatest quality of life.

Lose it, and it just starts getting replaced by other faith based behaviour (marxism atm, which has been a complete and utter disaster wherever implemented). So pick your poison.

Yeah I tend to agree regardless of your beliefs  the evidence suggests it has a positive effect on society in terms of morals, ethics and long term success. Most of my friends these days are atheists or agnostics. They don't go to church but they still baptize their children and send them to Christian schools because they recognize they are better and the influence of the school and also the other children going to the school will be more positive for their kids. 

On 12/18/2020 at 4:18 PM, Justanaverageguy said:

Christianity is the chicken which layed the modern Scientific egg you could say. Now you want to shoot the chicken because it's "anti egg". 🐔🐣 😂

It's an interesting point to consider. What will happen as society moves more towards atheism ? Also I think this is an Aesop's fable right ? To shoot the goose that laid the golden egg. Destroying the thing which gave you an advantage because you thought it was impeding progress.