Atheism Defined

[Charlemagne_II]

Thirdly - “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” - Albert Einstein.

It is downright intellectually dishonest of you to use this quote to prove that Einstein was an atheist, especially in light of his other quotes where he repudiates the atheists of his day who tried to make him out to be one of their own.

I never said Einstein believed in a personal God. I said he was not an atheist. Believe it and stop trying to put him on your side!

And stop the arrogance of presuming that anyone who does believe in any kind of God is illogical. You only make yourself look all the more illogical.

 

[wanstronian]

Then do you have empirical evidence for how the universe was created, which can be proven through the means of repeatable experiment? Please post it for us!

Of course I don’t. You asked me how I can say there is no God. Well, for the same reason that I can say there is no such thing as fairies. No proof. This is a perfectly valid response to your initial incredulous question, “How could they say there is no God? It is almost amazing to me!”

1. I fail to see how point #1 makes belief in God illogical. Just because theists disagree with respect to divine revelation does not mean that faith is illogical. Other religions are shadows of a greater truth and some are completely false. Counterfeit money does not negate that the genuine article exist but rather it infers there is a ‘genuine article’. Aristotle for centuries was the world’s arbiter of mini scientific truths. He was, however, in many statements proven incorrect and overthrown by greater truths of both Galileo and Newton. We still use Newton’s mechanics but Einstein theory of relativity proved Newton measured the arrow of time incorrectly. Religion is no different with regard to this aspect than science was. Do you believe science is also illogical?
2. Couldn’t agree more, as I stated above in #1. How does that make faith illogical?
3. To the contrary there is overwhelming evidence. I’ll present just two for a taste of the prophetic. These two accounts match what happened to Christ on the cross. One is from king David c.a. 1000 BC the other from Isaiah the prophet 700BC.
4. Obviously they do not. If you have proofs that they do please present them.
5. Sorry, but I believe your logic is illogical

Sorry, I should have explained. It’s not a list of reasons why belief in God is illogical, it’s a set of steps to arrive at a conclusion.

Your response to Point 3 is interesting but ultimately inconclusive. What percentage of predictions in the bible actually came to fruition after they were written? I could make ten predictions here and now (if I had the time to think about them for a while), it’s a fair bet that two or three of them would come true in a close enough approximation to make me seem remarkably prescient. Add in the lack of reproductive integrity inherent in early rewritings of the bible, and you can see how some of the predictions made seem to have come true. It’s not evidence of anything, it can be easily dismissed as coincidence.

Why do you say all religions don’t have equal validity? I’ll qualify it by saying all major religions. Surely to their believers, their own personal religion is more valid than any other? You’re not looking at it objectively!

 

[wanstronian]

Thirdly - “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” - Albert Einstein.

It is downright intellectually dishonest of you to use this quote to prove that Einstein was an atheist, especially in light of his other quotes where he repudiates the atheists of his day who tried to make him out to be one of their own.

What’s dishonest about using Einstein’s own quote? You did! It seems to me that this is as categorical and unequivocal a quote as you can get. There’s no ambiguity. What’s the problem?

I never said Einstein believed in a personal God. I said he was not an atheist. Believe it and stop trying to put him on your side!

Oh okay then, I’ll just believe it, shall I. Okay. QED. (btw, I’m not the one who introducted Einstein to the thread - there’s no point getting all defensive just because I’ve repudiated your statement!)

And stop the arrogance of presuming that anyone who does believe in any kind of God is illogical. You only make yourself look all the more illogical.

How so? I’ve presented my 5-step justification - what’s wrong with it? I ask that genuinely - it seems as obvious to me as your position clearly does to you. So if you can show objectively and categorically that any of my statements are wrong, I’ll think on it further. Otherwise, my argument is just as solid as any other.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Firstly, none of these distinguished gentlemen had the benefit of the scientific advances we have made since their lives ended. Newton was born over 350 years ago! At a time, incidentally, it was pretty much suicide to publicly declare oneself an atheist.

Ah, so if he wasn’t afraid of the Church, he would have been an atheist like you? You obviously are not familiar with Newton’s philosophy nor his life. He was afraid of no one. Everyone was afraid of him. In his later years he spent more time and labor analyzing scriptural prophecies than he ever did as a scientist. Using a deciphering code, among his notes was found the prediction that the state of Israel would be founded again in the 1940s. This happened.

So I don’t think you can put him in your camp.

Moreover, if you are going to use their antiquity against them, I think modern discoveries in science would have made Newton a Trinitarian rather than a Unitarian, and the Big Bang would have confirmed his belief in Scripture, which also tells us that the world had a beginning in a flash of light.

The same for Darwin. Were he aware of developments in micro-chemistry today, he would have seen the intellectual prescience of God more vividly in the bio-chemical origins of life which clearly cannot be explained by his own theory of evolution.

No, I’m afraid you can make no rational case against God without dismantling all modern science to do so. Even then, Darwin is on record … he was never an atheist. Show me the sentence written by him that says he was. I’ll show you the sentence he used to call himself a theist.

So if you can show objectively and categorically that any of my statements are wrong, I’ll think on it further. Otherwise, my argument is just as solid as any other.

Have already done this.

Your turn.

 

[wanstronian]

Ah, so if he wasn’t afraid of the Church, he would have been an atheist like you? You obviously are not familiar with Newton’s philosophy nor his life. He was afraid of no one. Everyone was afraid of him. In his later years he spent more time and labor analyzing scriptural prophecies than he ever did as a scientist. Using a deciphering code, among his notes was found the prediction that the state of Israel would be founded again in the 1940s. This happened.

So I don’t think you can put him in your camp.

I never tried to - you’re just putting words into my mouth. I just pointed out the problems with your use of Newton. What about modern contemporaries of the three you mentioned? People who have the benefit of between 50 and 300 years of science at their disposal?

Moreover, if you are going to use their antiquity against them, I think modern discoveries in science would have made Newton a Trinitarian rather than a Unitarian, and the Big Bang would have confirmed his belief in Scripture, which also tells us that the world had a beginning in a flash of light.

A ‘flash of light’ is not a huge leap of the imagination, though. It was hardly going to be spawned to a groovy disco beat. And I don’t think you should start assuming what Newton’s modern-day attitude would have been - there are more factors than you (or I) are capable of considering.

The same for Darwin. Were he aware of developments in micro-chemistry today, he would have seen the intellectual prescience of God more vividly in the bio-chemical origins of life which clearly cannot be explained by his own theory of evolution.

More conjecture. How can you know what conclusions he would have arrived at?

No, I’m afraid you can make no rational case against God without dismantling all modern science to do so. Even then, Darwin is on record … he was never an atheist. Show me the sentence written by him that says he was. I’ll show you the sentence he used to call himself a theist.

May I politely remind you that you introduced these scientists to the thread, in an incomplete way, to try and enforce your own point of view. I simply illustrated how you had cherry-picked quotes, and filled in the gaps. I never said Darwin was an atheist. It’s clear his belief wavered, as I said previously. You started by implying very strongly that he was a clear-cut theist. This was a disingenous argument.

Have already done this.

How? Your two (name removed by moderator)uts on this matter so far have been firstly to inconcisely call upon three respected but disadvantaged scientists and selectively quote them in an effort to prove your points; and secondly:

stop the arrogance of presuming that anyone who does believe in any kind of God is illogical. You only make yourself look all the more illogical.

which is more of a telling-off than any kind of rational argument.

I’ve obviously missed your incisive rebuttal, so perhaps you would repeat it in straightforward terms, just for me?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Your two (name removed by moderator)uts on this matter so far have been firstly to inconcisely call upon three respected but **disadvantaged scientists *and selectively quote them in an effort to prove your points;

Disadvantaged were they? Oh my, but you are far more advantaged? Why, because you read Dawkins? Or because you are smarter than Einstein?

I’ll just let other viewers at CA decide that for themselves.

 

[wanstronian]

Disadvantaged were they? Oh my, but you are far more advantaged? Why, because you read Dawkins? Or because you are smarter than Einstein?

I’ll just let other viewers at CA decide that for themselves.

Would you not agree that 300 years of advancement in science would give a scientist an advantage? Why do you have to twist everything I write? I’m not more advantaged, but I would be were I in the same line of work, at least in terms of the scientific means at my disposal. That doesn’t mean I’m smarter, nor have I even hinted that I might be. You’re just engaging in a Straw Man argument.

Is this your normal debating strategy - to twist the words of those with whom you disagree to try and gain an advantage in the eyes of the thread onlookers? I shall have to scan some of your past posts and see if I detect a trend. Ultimately though, by contorting my statements, not only are you missing the point, but you’re engaging in a different debate. That doesn’t assist the thread, and you’re just turning this into a personal attack. (Seems a bit unchristian to me…)

I don’t understand where all this aggression comes from if I’m honest, but it seems to stem at least partially from your apparent inability to read what I’ve written. Instead you’ve taken your own ideas of what an atheist might say, assumed I’m saying it, and gotten yourself angry.

I’m happy to continue this debate, but it would be nice if you depersonalised it and took the time to read and understand what I say before responding.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

wanstronian:

Sorry, I should have explained. It’s not a list of reasons why belief in God is
illogical, it’s a set of steps to arrive at a conclusion.

Hi Wanstronian,
But if not logical steps then what other types of steps, other than personal revelation from the Divine - of Whom you do not believe in, can one derive a meaningful conclusion?

wanstronian:

Your response to Point 3 is interesting but ultimately inconclusive. What percentage of predictions in the bible actually came to fruition after they were written? I could make ten predictions here and now (if I had the time to think about them for a while), it’s a fair bet that two or three of them would come true in a close enough approximation to make me seem remarkably prescient.

You sound like you want God to convince you from cold hard statistics but as I said before God is interested in your heart not your head. I will say, however, that certainly a statistically significant portion of prophesy has been fulfilled but not all prophesy has been fulfilled - “yet!” As the Book of Thessalonians and the Book of Revelation tells us, Man’s day is not quite over “yet” but the Day of the Lord is approaching. When it does come we who have been born of the Spirit into Christ Jesus in these failing temporal bodies will be born into Christ glorified as Saint Paul tells us.

1Cr 15:51-57
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin [is] the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So much for punctuated equilibrium. This will be the new man created by God to reign with Christ not some random product of human micro-evolution summed together to produce a macro level transitional form that they’ve been trying to find but a product of Divine grace and love. So maybe puncuated equilibrium isn’t all that far off eh?
Anyhow at that point all prophesies that point to the reign of Christ in the Bible will be
fulfilled. We also know that many will dismiss these claims as foolish. Saint Peter wrote:

2Pe 3:1-4 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

Saint Paul adds:

1Cr 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

It is not because of intellect that God will choose to save. Jesus said if you cannot accept the kingdom of heaven like a little child you shall never enter it. This is very just to me because some of the most loving people with the purest hearts have been people the world spits on and does not even consider worth having around. Biut that is not God’s way. Heaven will be full of the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the ones considered insignificant in eyes of the world. Hell will be filled with prideful self made men who were too busy for other people or God in all their self importanance and they will be sent in the wrath of God to a Christless eternity.

1Cr 1:27 But rather God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;

Love is from God and we see it external evidence but like God it is invisible, we do not know its color, its true depth, height but only the foolish would deny love’s existence. To live and never have loved is the saddest story of perdition. My dad spent 26 years in the FDNY but all christians are called to be firemen. Saint Jude instructs us.

Jude 1:20-23 Beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.

While there is breath there is time but the Lord’s mercy is not indefinite but fixed, as Peter told us:

2Pe 3:9-12 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

(CONT’D)

wanstronian:

Add in the lack of reproductive integrity inherent in early rewritings of the bible,
and you can see how some of the predictions made seem to have come true. It’s
not evidence of anything, it can be easily dismissed as coincidence.

What lack of reproductive integrity might that be? You have got to be kidding me or else you have been deceitfully misinformed. Before the discovery of the DSS the oldest MS of the Old Testament was from about 1000 AD. With the discoveries of the DSS’ at Qumran we have now pushed back those texts to 200BC. I have translational copies sitting on my bookshelf and can read the same things out of those texts as I can out of the modern translations of the Bible ala 20th & 21rst century. I guess you’ll just have to explain to this dunce the so called ‘lack of integrity’ verses that you are speaking of. Can you actually prove to me any significant meanings to the texts that have been changed in order to impeach any doctrine of the Church? As far as the NT goes I’ve also read portions of the Greek texts out of Sinaiticus c.a. 315 AD and other than the few expected scribal errors, and a paragraph or two of insertions from other texts which were postulated to be apostolic but not formerly attached to their book, you have the same NT you have today. That amazing considering many chapters and books were written on separate papyrus and codices yet we have such amazing integrity we would exegete that text the same as a copy written a millenia or more later. In fact Wanstronian I’ll give you a challenge. Name one other book of the ancient world bridged to their modern translation that has the integrity of the Bible? I will state you will not be able to find one - it is in a league by itself! Yet people are willing to dismiss the Bible but not secular books from the age of Aristotle, Homer, Tacticus, etc. Based on their literary integrity no one is stating Julius Caesar didn’t cross the Rubicon.

wanstronian:

Why do you say all religions don’t have equal validity? I’ll qualify it by saying all major religions. Surely to their believers, their own personal religion is more valid than any other? You’re not looking at it objectively!

There are many truth claims and I challenge you to look at them. I’d be glad to talk about them with you. Again I will state that prophesy was a big part of my belief but I believe that God is truth, just as Jesus claimed, and the truth can be seen from many different perspectives. But no matter what perspective you approach from you will land in the same destination. Like I said Jesus was either a meglomanic and a liar or He was who He said He was. There is no doubt in my mind, nor could there be that He is indeed the Lord of Glory, I’d have to write a book in order to tell you all the convincing ways He has changed my life and answered my prayers. So the short answer will be that none of others have the integrity that I find in the Bible. None of them fulfill prophesy like the Bible does. None of them address the problem of evil as the Bible does, nor do any other offer an wholly adequate story of man’s redemption that is contained in the cross of Christ which shows a Divine love that humbles my heart and creates in my soul a yearning for God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

*Belief in God is illogical by its very nature. *

These are your words, not mine.

The question really for me is: why are you so contemptuous of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein? Please don’t say you didn’t write off their views as I quoted them, because you certainly did.

You began by falsely stating that Einstein was an atheist. You still haven’t retracted that even though everyone else in the world but you knows it is false. No one said he believed in a personal God, but you have apparently confused his rejection of a personal God with the rejection of a Deist God which Einstein certainly did affirm on several occasions.

What has changed since Einstein to make his position illogical and yours logical?

Then you wrote of Newton as a prisoner of his time, and Darwin as an agnostic (but not an atheist). In what way is this a proof that you are more logical than Newton, Darwin, and Einstein.

Please show us what you have discovered that Newton, Darwin, and Einstein missed.

The point I am trying to make overall is that you ought to be certain of your facts before you speak, and then you ought to be certain that you are more logical than Newton, Darwin, and Einstein before you dismiss them as irrational because they were not atheists like you and the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins.

And you might want to ask yourself why Einstein thought of atheists as fanatics, and whether Dawkins does not fit Einstein’s description of a fanatical atheist.

For example, does this remark by Dawkins strike you as fanatical? Or do you agree with it? You have already said that religious people are irrational in their beliefs.

“Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the "no-contests.”

In which of these three categories do you think Dawkins would place Newton?

Before you answer, you might want to make sure you know something about Newton’s religious interests.

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

*Belief in God is illogical by its very nature. *

These are your words, not mine.

Indeed, and I justified them with a 5-step rationale which you obviously didn’t bother to read. I also asked, genuinely, where you thought my rationale went wrong - you didn’t bother to respond.

The question really for me is: why are you so contemptuous of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein? Please don’t say you didn’t write off their views as I quoted them, because you certainly did.

I’m not contemptuous - there you go putting words in my mouth again. I simply pointed out that these days we have a much better understanding of the world from a scientific point of view. Given that these three were scientists, I believe that this advancement would have benefited them.

You began by falsely stating that Einstein was an atheist.

I stated nothing, I just quoted Einstein himself

You still haven’t retracted that even though everyone else in the world but you knows it is false.

I wouldn’t presume to retract a statement on behalf of someone else. Now who’s being contemptuous?

No one said he believed in a personal God, but you have apparently confused his rejection of a personal God with the rejection of a Deist God which Einstein certainly did affirm on several occasions.

Yet again I remind you that you introduced Einstein et al to the thread, I merely provided a balanced viewpoint regarding their quotes.

What has changed since Einstein to make his position illogical and yours logical?

Nothing, this is a vacuous question designed purely to make me look stupid. Poor form on your part.

Then you wrote of Newton as a prisoner of his time, and Darwin as an agnostic (but not an atheist). In what way is this a proof that you are more logical than Newton, Darwin, and Einstein.

Please show us what you have discovered that Newton, Darwin, and Einstein missed.

If proof were needed that you’re not even reading my reponses, this is it. I have already stated that I’m not smarter than these guys. All I’ve done is fill in the gaps of their quotes, and point out that there have been advances in science since these guys lived. Do you believe that the smartest guy in the world 3,000 years ago is better equipped to understand the nature of the universe than a modern-day high school science student? It’s analogous to what you’re suggesting.

The point I am trying to make overall is that you ought to be certain of your facts before you speak, and then you ought to be certain that you are more logical than Newton, Darwin, and Einstein before you dismiss them as irrational because they were not atheists like you and the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins.

I’ve never said they were irrational. You’re putting words in my mouth again, why aren’t I surprised?

And you might want to ask yourself why Einstein thought of atheists as fanatics, and whether Dawkins does not fit Einstein’s description of a fanatical atheist.

No, I don’t want to ask myself that, it adds nothing to the argument either way.

For example, does this remark by Dawkins strike you as fanatical? Or do you agree with it? You have already said that religious people are irrational in their beliefs.

“Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the "no-contests.”

Fanatical, no. Inflammatory, yes. But again, adding nothing to this thread.

In which of these three categories do you think Dawkins would place Newton?

Wouldn’t have a clue - adds nothing to the thread.

Before you answer, you might want to make sure you know something about Newton’s religious interests.

You’ve turned the original point of this thread into an argument about your three favourite scientists. Yet you quote no modern contemporaries - why is this? Incidentally, I took a look through some of your posts, and guess what? Repeated references to Newton, Darwin and Einstein, with those three cherry-picked quotes! You must have them saved in a file on your desktop - am I right? To be fair, you’re quote open about your fetish.

I also discovered a common theme regarding your twisting of other people’s words to try and make them look irrational - for example, implying that another poster had suggested that Jesus preached child abuse. You’re quite clearly more interested in playing to the crowd than engaging in structured debate; but I suspect the majority of your audience will see right through your tactics.

I also see that I’m not the first to point out your propensity for straw-men arguments.

Anyway, you’re clearly not interested in a sensible, adult discussion, instead preferring to drag the conversation down to the level of insult. If this is where you’re happiest then good for you, but I didn’t join this forum to engage in childish slanging matches.

If you can contribute something constructive and sensible to this thread then we can continue, until then I think I’ll just ignore you. Go troll another thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

No, I wouldn’t say that Einstein was illogical, but Einstein didn’t believe in God, other than as a metaphor.

These are your remarks, not Einstein’s.

Where does Einstein say that God is a metaphor? You can’t provide your source because he never said it. You are making up the “truth” as you go along.

Don’t worry, I won’t be troubling you any more.

 

[jkiernan56]

I think it takes much greater faith to be an atheist than a Christian. How could they say there is no God? It is almost amazing to me! The hardening of one’s heart is such a terrible disease! It is very sad
youtube.com/watch?v=f6NvC4uyNcI

Kyrie Eleison; Erchomai Kyrios.

I wholeheartedly agree. It takes “faith” for an athiest to conclude that a Supreme Being, uncreated Creator does not exist.

 

[wanstronian]

I wholeheartedly agree. It takes “faith” for an athiest to conclude that a Supreme Being, uncreated Creator does not exist.

Surely it takes more faith to believe in something for which no evidence exists, than it does to fail to believe in something for the same reaon.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Surely it takes more faith to believe in something for which no evidence exists, than it does to fail to believe in something for the same reaon.

In God we trust all others bring data please

.
Hi Wanstronian,
I don’t think you really answered my last post addressed to you, but I’ll try again.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5407143#post5407143
So you can therefore prove that the universe came into being from nothing all by itself?
It is almost as if you are saying nothing created the universe but philosophers who both invented logic and the scientific method say, “Ex nilhilo nihil fit” or “out of nothing nothing comes” Take a step back and consider

1. 
   *]There was no such thing as time before the birth of the physical universe - Agree or disagree? If you don’t know look up Einstein Relativity or read Paul Davies treatise on time.
   *]Mathematical principles seem to work very well in figuring out the complexities of the universe. Why is that? True randomness should not give birth to set laws that appear irrevocable with respect to the physical world. (Agree/Disagree)
   *]Set theory works well in understanding complex relationships in the physical world but if the physical world began with the Big Bang, and time with it, then what preceeded it is not of the same set. Hence time itself, or rather space/time to be correct with respect to relativity, must be an induced subset from a superset of something that is both timeless and non physical - else it could be measured in time & physics. Augustine called this eternity. (Agree/Disagree)
   *]Now if intelligence exists in the inferior subset, that is temporal I would infer that it is derived from the superset, which is eternal and induced what is called the uni-verse. One-verse that comes to mind is “Let there be Light.”
   *]There appears to be purpose to the universe, in spite of the ramblings of the neo athiests who deny there is. They look at the universe and the billions of stars and galaxies and see a random collection of helium and hydrogen in critical mass fusion but isn’t the human soul struck with awe and wonder over it?
   
   Why do we pay good money to visit planetariums and look at telescopes? So we can say look at that random collection of atoms condensed and compressed by an accident of random fusion? Really? That does not sound very logical to me wanstronian. There appears to be purpose behind the universe, even if one cannot bring himself to say God is the cause and designer of that purpose, as the prohet Isaiah told us 2700 years ago.
   

   Isaiah 55:11 So shall My Word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

   Is it logical to go to the Grand Canyon and not be awestruck by its beauty, or peer into the wonders of how we are so fearfully and wonderfully made and not be amazed? Or do we look at these things and shrug and say that’s just how the roulette ball bounces - no big deal? I have been here many times before with atheists. I find that most are not truly atheists at heart but instead do not consider God because they simply don’t like Him. Not one of us can avoid the God question. One day you yourself will have to give an account for the life that God gave you. Know this. On that day truly all illogical arguments against His wisdom will be destroyed and everyone will reap what they have sown. Saint Paul had this to say to those who refused the Gracious offer of Christ.
   

   Rom 1:16-23 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

   So I believe you err greatly in stating that we put our faith in something for which no evidence exists. It’s either that you unfortunately don’t see that the universe itself testisfies to the reality of God or, worse, that you refuse to consider it. While He grants you life there is still hope for your eternal soul. The stakes could not be higher. The question is will you fulfil the purpose for which God created you or will you reject His offer of grace for which He paid the price for your sin at the cross? Jesus said,
   

   John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

   I will pray for you tonight so that you do not wind up as the rich man, that Jesus spoke of, who had everything on earth but lost his eternal soul.
   
   I will conclude and leave you with a parable Jesus spoke to complacent men about 1977 years ago.
   (cont’d)

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

**(cont’d from previous post) **
What does a Christless eternity look like? The Parable of Christ to the self righteous and those wise in their own eyes.

Luk 16:19-31 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed and who lived each day in luxury. At his door lay a diseased beggar named Lazarus. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores. Finally, the beggar died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Lazarus in the far distance with Abraham. "The rich man shouted, Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in these flames.' "But Abraham said to him, Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. Anyone who wanted to cross over to you from here is stopped at its edge, and no one there can cross over to us.’ "Then the rich man said, Please, Father Abraham, send him to my father's home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them about this place of torment so they won't have to come here when they die.' "But Abraham said, Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read their writings anytime they want to.’ "The rich man replied, No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will turn from their sins.' "But Abraham said, If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios

This is your life God gave it to you - what will you do with it?
youtube.com/watch?v=vaia32TsPq0&NR=1

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t think you really answered my last post addressed to you

Sorry, it all got a bit confusing with multi-part posts. I’ll try and distill my responses down to one, necessitates cutting some of your post out but hopefully I can still address the pertinent points:

But if not logical steps then what other types of steps…

That’s the point - I believe these steps are logical and lead to the conclusion that belief in God is illogical. I’m still waiting for someone to point out the flaw in the argument.

You sound like you want God to convince you from cold hard statistics but as I said before God is interested in your heart not your head.

But scientific evidence - ‘head proof’ is the only proof that is real proof.

I will say, however, that certainly a statistically significant portion of prophesy has been fulfilled but not all prophesy has been fulfilled - “yet!”

Insofar as a lot of the bible has been written to fulfil prophecy, I suppose you could say that’s true. But there is no independently verifiable record that prophecy, as it was written, was fulfilled. The bible is not evidence of anything that you claim

It is not because of intellect that God will choose to save.

I would expect that, if God is as wise as he’s supposed to be, it will be the morality of the life that has been led. In which case, faith/belief is not necessary - it’s enough just to be a good person.

Love is from God and we see it external evidence

Where is this evidence?

…only the foolish would deny love’s existence.

Fine, but you don’t need God to have love.

What lack of reproductive integrity might that be?

Well, the fanciful rhetoric of the Old Testament might have survived more or less intact, but the New Testament - which is what deals with your specific case (Jesus’s death) wasn’t even started until several centuries after he died. It’s logical to assume that the stories to that point were passed by word of mouth - notoriously unreliable even within the span of a single human lifetime let alone ten or fifteen generations. Then there’s the fact that there were many additional, contradictory gospels written, but only four of them have made it into the New Testament. The most likely reason for that is that they were the ones that suited the religious polititcs of the day, but if you have a better explanation let’s hear it - I’m no expert in these matters.

Name one other book of the ancient world bridged to their modern translation that has the integrity of the Bible?

I can’t - I have zero expertise in this matter. But integrity of a tome does not equate to truth of its contents.

There are many truth claims

Claims, yes. Evidence? No.

So you can therefore prove that the universe came into being from nothing all by itself?

No, of course I can’t. Nobody can. That doesn’t mean that God made it though. Why postulate something for which there is no evidence?

It is almost as if you are saying nothing created the universe

I apologise if you have inferred this, I don’t believe I’ve implied it. Nothing sentient created the universe.

Take a step back and consider
There was no such thing as time before the birth of the physical universe - Agree or disagree?

That’s a tricky one! Stephen Hawking says, “Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.” But on the basis that the Big Bang happened, there must have been a ‘before’. By which logic, we can reasonably deduce that time existed before the big bang, even if it had nothing upon which to act.

True randomness should not give birth to set laws that appear irrevocable with respect to the physical world. (Agree/Disagree)

Disagree - Although the physical makeup of the universe may be random, that’s no reason why that particular makeup should not have a set of laws governing it.

…time itself, or rather space/time to be correct with respect to relativity, must be an induced subset from a superset of something that is both timeless and non physical - else it could be measured in time & physics. (Agree/Disagree)

Disagree. Space-time does not have to be a subset of something else, it could just be an altered state. No smaller or larger than that which preceded it. I’d caveat both ‘timeless’ and ‘non-physical’ as I have done above.

Now if intelligence exists in the inferior subset, that is temporal I would infer that it is derived from the superset, which is eternal and induced what is called the uni-verse. One-verse that comes to mind is “Let there be Light.”

Okay, this is where you start to replace logic with conjecture. There’s no reason for assuming the ‘subset’ (or subsequent set) is inferior to that which preceded it. And your frivolous manipulation of “Universe” equating to “Let there be light” has no place in any serious debate.

There appears to be purpose to the universe, in spite of the ramblings of the neo athiests who deny there is. They look at the universe and the billions of stars and galaxies and see a random collection of helium and hydrogen in critical mass fusion but isn’t the human soul struck with awe and wonder over it?
Why do we pay good money to visit planetariums and look at telescopes? So we can say look at that random collection of atoms condensed and compressed by an accident of random fusion? Really?

There’s nothing that says an understanding of something should detract from its wonder. In fact, quite the opposite. This is a rather vacuous argument.

There appears to be purpose behind the universe.

I disagree. Cause, yes. Purpose, no.

Didn’t quite get it in one post! Continued below

 

[wanstronian]

Is it logical to go to the Grand Canyon and not be awestruck by its beauty, or peer into the wonders of how we are so fearfully and wonderfully made and not be amazed? Or do we look at these things and shrug and say that’s just how the roulette ball bounces - no big deal?

Already addressed above.

I have been here many times before with atheists. I find that most are not truly atheists at heart but instead do not consider God because they simply don’t like Him.

Why wouldn’t they like him… unless they’ve read the Old Testament?

One day you yourself will have to give an account for the life that God gave you. Know this. On that day truly all illogical arguments against His wisdom will be destroyed and everyone will reap what they have sown.

Foundationless conjecture.

It’s either that you unfortunately don’t see that the universe itself testisfies to the reality of God or, worse, that you refuse to consider it.

Or a third option, YOU are deluded. Based on observable evidence, Option 3 is the most likely.

I will pray for you tonight so that you do not wind up as the rich man, that Jesus spoke of, who had everything on earth but lost his eternal soul.

Thank you, but there’s really no need to go to any trouble.

Luk 16:19-31 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed and who lived each day in luxury. At his door lay a diseased beggar named Lazarus. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores. Finally, the beggar died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Lazarus in the far distance with Abraham. "The rich man shouted, Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in these flames.' "But Abraham said to him, Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. Anyone who wanted to cross over to you from here is stopped at its edge, and no one there can cross over to us.’ "Then the rich man said, Please, Father Abraham, send him to my father's home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them about this place of torment so they won't have to come here when they die.' "But Abraham said, Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read their writings anytime they want to.’ "The rich man replied, No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will turn from their sins.' "But Abraham said, If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

Proving nothing.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

** I believe these steps are logical and lead to the conclusion that belief in God is illogical. I’m still waiting for someone to point out the flaw in the argument. **

Hi Again Wanstronian
These were what you claimed as your logical steps I combined those that were related for argument sake.

• 1. There is more than one religion. 2. They can’t all be right. 5. With reference to point 2 religion is illogical.
• 1. There’s no evidence to suggest that any one is more valid than any other (or indeed, that any of them are valid at all, in terms of reality) 4. Therefore all religions hold equal validity.
• 1. It’s not a leap of faith I made, but a series of small steps of logic. No, I wouldn’t say that Einstein was illogical, but Einstein didn’t believe in God, other than as a metaphor.

As you know I already did point out that individually your logic was flawed. I surmise then that you are now saying that collectively together then somehow, even though by themselves they have been shown to be flawed, that they somehow add up to a logical conclusion? That too is a failure in basic logic in that one failing part of any system causes the entire system to fail. I’d be fired from my job if I ever used that premise for system design. Here are my responses for the sum total of your system of logic.
1. This is a False premise: It does not invalidate any truth as to presumption of God as a reality. *(i.e. There are some 20 dollar bills in circulation within the US that were not printed in the Federal mint. Some of them don’t look even close to real ones other are more clever forgeries. Still that does not take away, though versions appear diverse & plentiful, that the ones printed by the Federal government are indeed the genuine article just because the others happen to be forgeries.) *What I just said also negates your 2nd point.
Also when summed it is illogical. ** if A is false AND B is false then even if your OR’d the function it would still produce a false. Point #5 really isn’t a point. It depends on #2 being true, which we have already proven it is not. **

3. I already pointed to prophesies about Jesus’ crucifixion that pre-existed his birth by 700 years and 1000 years respectively. You were not able to impeach the fact that I did indeed make a true and factual statement. You simply said I could do that but offered no proof.
Neither did you offer any proofs from other religions that impeach those truth claims or exceed their relevance. Therefore you have not yet proved #3.

4 like #5 is not an argument it is a statement an it depends soley on #3 being true, which you have yet to prove.
**So in conclusion either 3 alone or 3 and 4 together are indeterminate, hence impeached. So together you have not proven even a single truth never mind a complete system of logic that really states anything substantive which can claim a system of truth.
**

#6 as I already stated in my last post Is a Patently false statement about Einstein, who was certainly not an atheist

I’ll make it bold font instead of gray just in case you missed it last time.

Einstein:

I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with many book in many languages. The child knows someone must have wriiten those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. - Walter Isaacson, "Einstein and faith, Time , 4/5/2007.

**“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and the Talmud… I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” One skeptic expressed amazement that Einstein even believed Jesus existed (that was the liberal argument 60 and 70 years ago now wholly discredited of course) Einstein replied, “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” **- The Delusion of Disbelief, Aikman, Ch.4, p 89.

I’ll have to take a look at the rest of your post when I get home from Worship practice.

Until then hope you and your family have a pleasant night,
Erchomai Kyrios

 

[wanstronian]

Hi Again Wanstronian
As you know I already did point out that individually your logic was flawed.

No, you took my statements individually and then tried to show how each was not proof of illogicality. For example: “1. I fail to see how point #1 makes belief in God illogical.” Well, I never claimed it did in isolation. You then claimed that there was evidence that one was more true than any other, but then merely quoted from a book (which proves nothing). Then you challenged my assertion that all religions had equal validity (I later qualified these to 'major religions), but provided no evidence to support your challenge.

I surmise then that you are now saying that collectively together then somehow, even though by themselves they have been shown to be flawed

No they haven’t

, that they somehow add up to a logical conclusion? That too is a failure in basic logic in that one failing part of any system causes the entire system to fail. I’d be fired from my job if I ever used that premise for system design.

And rightly so. Luckily for me, that’s not what I did.

Here are my responses for the sum total of your system of logic.

1. This is a False premise: It does not invalidate any truth as to presumption of God as a reality.

Well it doesn’t really, you’re simply claiming that one religion is more valid than any others. With no evidence. This makes your analogy flawed.

Also when summed it is illogical. if A is false AND B is false then even if your OR’d the function it would still produce a false. Point #5 really isn’t a point. It depends on #2 being true, which we have already proven it is not.

‘We?’ Don’t lump me in with your bare assertion fallacies!

1. I already pointed to prophesies about Jesus’ crucifixion that pre-existed his birth by 700 years and 1000 years respectively. You were not able to impeach the fact that I did indeed make a true and factual statement. You simply said I could do that but offered no proof.
   Neither did you offer any proofs from other religions that impeach those truth claims or exceed their relevance. Therefore you have not yet proved #3.

‘Prophecies’ that didn’t make predictions with anything like enough detail to be taken seriously.

4 like #5 is not an argument it is a statement an it depends soley on #3 being true, which you have yet to prove.

I don’t have to prove the opposite of x to demonstrate that a belief in x is illogical. All I have to do is determine that there is no evidence for x. This I have done by challenging many posters on this forum; none of them have been able to provide evidence for God’s existence. If someone out there has evidence for the existence of God, they’re keeping it secret for some reason.

So in conclusion either 3 alone or 3 and 4 together are indeterminate, hence impeached. So together you have not proven even a single truth never mind a complete system of logic that really states anything substantive which can claim a system of truth.

There is no evidence (or any other reason to suppose) that any religion is more valid than any other - you just happen to believe yours is superior. This demonstrates the illogicality more effectively than I had hoped to.

#6 as I already stated in my last post Is a Patently false statement about Einstein, who was certainly not an atheist

Some quotes from Einstein himself then:

Einstein:

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.”
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being”
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere… Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "

I’ve had to leave some out because I want to keep this to just one post. By the way, I never said Einstein was an atheist, I said he didn’t believe in God. This was in response to Charlemagne’s disingenuous post earlier in this thread.

I’ll have to take a look at the rest of your post when I get home from Worship practice.

Worship practice?? You have to practice worshipping? And then go and really worship?

Until then hope you and your family have a pleasant night,

You also