Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 04:31pm PT
|
DR,
I'll go buy Why Darwin Matters and
God, A Failed Hypothesis if I can find 'em today.
And Yall know I'm a christian so I'm trying to show I'm keeping an open mind.
Any Atheists care to go out and buy either.....
---Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Lee Strobel (Dry but powerful, written by an ex-atheist)
---A Case for Faith also by Strobel
---Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
---Beyond the Cosmos by Hugh Ross (HEAVY. Written by a Christian Astrophysicist respected in his field who uses multidimensionality and physics to make a sound case for the existence of a creator)
Any body gonna step up to the plate here?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 04:38pm PT
|
Yes
The minute one uses theory it's useless for proving the absolute.
The absolute is not a theory.
God is not a theory.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
|
Micronut, I haven't read any of those books, in particular. I have tried to slog my way through some similar books that I got from my father, and frankly, I just can't very far. I'm pretty good at spotting bad science and bad logic, and, at least the books I've read, are full of both.
That being said, I'd be interested (in a perverse kind of way) to read someone claiming to use string theory, multidimensionality and physics to PROVE the existence of a creator.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 04:58pm PT
|
ok.....my bad, I just went and pulled Hugh Ross off the shelf to look at it.
HE DOESN'T USE STRING THEORY in that book...that was another book that was using it a basic illustration....
AND....I've re-worded my post to say that he uses astrophysics and high end mathematics as an interesting take on making a case for a creator. Great for the intellectual mind.
HE DOES NOT PROVE the existence of God. Sorry to use such absolutes. Only God can prove He exists.
Check it out though. Its a great read.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 05:08pm PT
|
I'm not sue any man can "Prove" God exists to another on his own merit or academic prowess.
I do however believe that God has the ability to prove himself, beyond all question to man. He has done it for me. I have seen him do it for others, much more hardened and skeptical than the guys on this site. Ive seen supernatural changes in lives that go beyond any explanation of science, philosophy, psychology or other creation of man.
I can only bear witness to the change in my own life and the things I have witnessed first hand.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 07:59pm PT
|
If God doesn't have the ability to prove himself then how can he be omnipotent? How can he be God?
There are philosophical proofs that exist as ontological reality. Numerical relationships that describe the phenomenological world with certain accuracy are an example. These numerical relationships that describe things like the area of a circle or square or whatever they may, these are transcendent truths that are so exactly the same in all human experience as to be the same certain experience to all and therefore must exist outside the mind alone.
These relationships must be objectively real outside the realm of human experience because of their transcendent universal nature which can be proved by the simplest measurement.
These relationships will exist after we are all gone and after all humanity is gone as well.
If the world were nothing but illusion this would not be true. If personal subjective experience was all human beings knew this would not be true as well.
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 08:55pm PT
|
C.S. Lewis was a shill for Christianity. But he said that either Christ was God or a liar or a madman. The idea that Christ was simply a good spiritual guy, a kind of prophet, or deeply religious character was absolutely unacceptable to Lewis. How you gonna prove Christ was God?
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 23, 2009 - 09:33pm PT
|
Hard words weschrist; but you have a point and as I mentioned up thread this is a question that confounds many faithful people.
here is a fairly standard Christian answer (I'm not endorsing it)
http://www.carm.org/questions/suffering.htm
But your portrait of karma is a little off base. Karma, as properly understood is not God's punishment. It is merely a reflection of our own souls back at us. In Hinduism this whole experience of material and sensual life must be understood first and foremost as an illusion. Something like a dream, or a nightmare more properly. If you are devoured by a tiger in a dream you aren't destroyed in reality, but if you are at all sensitive you are changed from the experience.
Hindus measure time in billions and trillions of years and lives are understood to be repeating cycles, millions of times, birth, old age, disease and death. The soul cycles through over and over. From the human perspective much seems "evil". From the eternal perspective this temporal reality is something like a reform school. As you think, as you act, as you relate to reality, so you will see reality. We make our own beds, now we must live in them. God's love and our love of God is the foundation and destination of all of reality. be patient.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 10:04pm PT
|
Have posted on this thread. Much posted here includes individuals life philosophies et al.
I am living a life right now that is so difficult I could quit ....almost did today....on God.
The life, theories, etc. spewed on this thread are good sounding.
But when your entire world crashes down around you, one needs to think and process the hey out of the disaster.
That's where the jesus thing on faith kicks in.
It's either there and you have faith .... or not. I choose to believe....sometimes I feel like I may die doing it, but I do.
Yikes ! Sorry if this does not make sense to some. :D
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 10:26pm PT
|
del cross, nothing I read or hear could cause me to lose faith in jesus. Life and living it each day is the challenge of belief. We be good so far .... today was horrendous in challenge.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 10:53pm PT
|
The evidence for God and for Christ is what it has always been, individual eyewitnesses. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands concerning the word of life -- the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." [1 John 1:1-3]
The reaction of the skeptics is also what it's always been. As to the Resurrection: "So the other disciples told [Thomas] 'We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, 'Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.'" [John 20:25] In other words, you say you saw it, but it's so incredible, I can't believe you unless I see it myself.
I find that an honest response, and I think Jesus does, too. After all, he doesn't zap Thomas; he appears to him and shows him the proof he asks. God doesn't despise doubters, and neither should those of us who believe because of our personal experience. Jesus confronts honest doubt with Himself -- for those who desire to know Him. In that sense, therefore, I disagree with the idea that God cannot prove His existence. Rather, He chooses not to reveal Himself to some who will not acknowledge their need of Him and His salvation, and who therefore don't seek Him.
Even there, though, we need to be careful. Jesus revealed Himself mostly to those who knew they were unrighteous, but not always, else, why appear to Saul of Tarsus?
The reaction to speaking in tongues is also unchanged. "And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?' But others mocking said, 'They are filled with new wine.'" [Acts 2:12-13] That reaction is also understandable. Paul the Apostle warned the Corinthians of undisciplined speaking in tongues throughout 1 Cor. 14, in particular. It's hardly surprising that an outsider hearing what sounds like unintelligable babbling would think he was seeing and hearing only fakery and nonsense.
The proof there is also experiential. I have spiritual gifts, but neither tongues nor their interpretation are mine. Still, I have enough life experience with the Holy Spirit in the 35 years since my conversion to know -- for myself -- that the gift is real. It's really the aspect of spiritual gifts of healing that I understood this thread to be about from Rockermike's original post.
Anyway, as I said earlier, the choice in belief is yours -- for now. I can hardly blame you for disbelieving me or the others whose experience differs from yours, but I also cannot refrain from urging you to seek the LORD while he may be found.
Further affiant sayeth not.
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2009 - 11:02pm PT
|
Paul wrote
"The proof of god's existence or non existence is the responsibility of the theist not the atheist"
It's nobody's responsibility. Whose responsibility is it to prove orgasms exist?
It's merely the quest of somebody who has never had one.
Say you are a character in a dream, how would you prove it?
Folks say an omnipotent God would could prove God exists. It's pretty obvious from the mystery of this world that either no God exists or God has zero will to make God's existence obvious.
Maybe that would spoil the game eh?
Big walls and offwidth are pure suffering, yet we do it for the adventure and experience.
LIfe is like that too. This isn't a "play" planet.
Peace
Karl
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 03:59pm PT
|
If someone posits an idea that is without substantive evidence and then creates a surrounding morality predicating laws that must be obeyed by the general population of a given society, then I would say there is an obligation to prove the "reality" of that idea. Theists have an obligation to prove the existence of God for precisely the above reasons.
If I declare that aliens from another galaxy had visited me and left me with a book of laws that I swear they left me and we had all better obey these laws including the imprisonment of all right handed individuals. Don't you think I'd have an obligation to prove the reality of my experience?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 04:06pm PT
|
All democracies must be mediated by a bill of rights lest we suffer the tyranny of the mob.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
|
Our bill of rights is ultimately based on self evident truths, too bad god isn't a self evident truth. Wouldn't that make all this a lot easier?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 04:59pm PT
|
Deist perhaps, Christian never in the orthodox sense. Jefferson had more in common with Hadrian than he did Christ. Have you ever wondered why D. C. is filled with Roman and Greek Architecture? The Supreme Court, Capitol Building, even theWhite House all take offs on pagan Roman temples. Jefferson was no Pentecostal. He had more in common with Orpheus.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 05:28pm PT
|
The Pantheon was built in the second century CE well into the Roman Imperial period not the republic. It was built by Hadrian and much imitated in the Renaissance.
I didn't say Jefferson worshipped multiple gods. I was simply pointing out his and the founding fathers delight in the idea of reason which the Pantheon and other Roman buildings are based on. My argument against "Religious Faith" is based on the same reason as opposed to your argument which is based on emotion and subjective experience.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 05:53pm PT
|
The first Pantheon was built By M. Agrippa but the structure that stands in Rome today was built or rebuilt entirely by Hadrian and each brick used in its construction is marked with with his seal.
It is the Hadrianic version of architecture that so influenced Palladio and others in the Renaissance and eventually T. Jefferson. You don't like being wrong and I understand that, but in this case you are wrong.
The Pantheon is based on a platonic form: the sphere. Platonic forms are often used as a proof of transcendent relationships and structures that indicate objectivity in the phenomenological world as I mentioned in an above post.
And please quit calling me names.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 05:57pm PT
|
Oh my.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 06:37pm PT
|
So is Jefferson some saint now, a holy figure? Just because he's a founding father doesn't have any bearing about his personal beliefs about religion.
He was a great man, but let's not annoint him to sainthood.
I can't believe you're using Jefferson quotes to make a religious point...he was just a man.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!