Best Arguments For or Against Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Achilles6129
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now going back to what I said earlier about being glad Jesus did not return. Because after thinking about this for awhile I realized if Jesus had returned, for example in the first century, what consequences would there be for us? It is likely we would not even exist to be discussing the problem. And thus, the whole thing would be mute. Therefore, for the sake of those who would come into existence I say that the Lord s return should be at that day and hour when God has ordained it according to his good will. And not simply something to be rushed into just to fulfill people’s expectations or desires. God is eternal and sees the big picture. Imagine the God of the universe planning his return based on some silly Bible code. No, his plan is from before the Bible even existed, from eternity. It takes far more into account than what we can see.
 
Note : I just noticed there was a mad face :mad: on my first post above, which was purely accidental. So think nothing of it. 😃
 
fisherman_carl said:
Note : I just noticed there was a mad face :mad: on my first post above, which was purely accidental. So think nothing of it. 😃
Click to expand...
I don’t even know how you managed to get that mad face into the OP’s title section of your post. This may be a first! So we have no choice but to think much of it!
 
Hi Carl,

It’s an argument against Christianity in the sense that God has not yet fulfilled his words and it’s been a very long time by natural measurements. That would suggest that the Bible is a myth.
 
The bad cop in me says that the bible reads like Alice in wonderland, too fantastic to be true…read without faith.

The good cop in me says that the bible reads like the greatest love story on earth…read with faith.
 
A very interesting thread. 🙂 First, I cannot present ANY arguments FOR Christianity. But there are many arguments against it. The basic problem is not just the nature of the arguments, but the basic premise of Christianity, which reads: “God exists”.

There are two problems here, the definition of “God”, and the meaning of “exists”. In order to define God, we need to use human words and concepts. But it is asserted that mere human words and concepts are simply inapplicable to God. God transcends our understanding, we simply cannot comprehend what God IS. We might have a vague glimpse of God’s nature, but that is all. But how could we know if that “glimpse” is accurate?

The second problem is the word “exists”. What does this word mean when applied to God? God does not exist as a “normal” entity (like a chair or a galaxy). God also does not exist as an abstract concept, like “good” or “beauty” or “love”. Concepts are not active entities. So what does “exists” mean here? Nothing at all. To say that God is “existence itself” is just a meaningless utterance. Existence is not an ontological entity, it is just a concept.

So the phrase “God exists” carries no informational value. Until this phrase can be defined and substantiated, there is nothing to talk about. 🙂
 
Pallas_Athene said:
A very interesting thread. 🙂 First, I cannot present ANY arguments FOR Christianity. But there are many arguments against it. The basic problem is not just the nature of the arguments, but the basic premise of Christianity, which reads: “God exists”.

There are two problems here, the definition of “God”, and the meaning of “exists”. In order to define God, we need to use human words and concepts. But it is asserted that mere human words and concepts are simply inapplicable to God. God transcends our understanding, we simply cannot comprehend what God IS. We might have a vague glimpse of God’s nature, but that is all. But how could we know if that “glimpse” is accurate?

The second problem is the word “exists”. What does this word mean when applied to God? God does not exist as a “normal” entity (like a chair or a galaxy). God also does not exist as an abstract concept, like “good” or “beauty” or “love”. Concepts are not active entities. So what does “exists” mean here? Nothing at all. To say that God is “existence itself” is just a meaningless utterance. Existence is not an ontological entity, it is just a concept.

So the phrase “God exists” carries no informational value. Until this phrase can be defined and substantiated, there is nothing to talk about. 🙂
Click to expand...
The FACT, that both these terms ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ even exist, in turn, means that ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ must consist of ‘encounter’; furthermore, if there was nothing and no one to encounter, then neither ‘reason’ nor ‘faith’ would exist.
 
friardchips said:
The FACT, that both these terms ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ even exist, in turn, means that ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ must consist of ‘encounter’; furthermore, if there was nothing and no one to encounter, then neither ‘reason’ nor ‘faith’ would exist.
Click to expand...
That is a typical example of putting the cart in front of the horse. By this line of “reasoning” you could assert that leprechauns and fairies “must” exist, because if they did not exist, we could never come up with the idea in the first place. You underestimate the power of fantasy and imagination.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
That is a typical example of putting the cart in front of the horse. By this line of “reasoning” you could assert that leprechauns and fairies “must” exist, because if they did not exist, we could never come up with the idea in the first place. You underestimate the power of fantasy and imagination.
Click to expand...
He he. 😃 Well, an interesting counter argument. You are taking extremes to prove a point which is exactly my point: that to be using extremes to make a reasonable point, you need the ability to reason in the first place. You have used a line of reasoning proving for yourself that reason is something real and actual and available. You would not have been able to put up a counter argument if reason and faith were not real. Leprechauns and fairies do not allow us to decipher between what is reasonable and unreasonable, as they are inactive, and grace cannot build on them - they are not part of our natural inbuilt psyche. And neither can they give closure to patterns of connecting thought. For they are invention not of the substance that came before. Reasoning, however, allows the very function of our faculties to do what they potentially have the capacity to do - to bring meaning to events based on a higher knowledge and truthful order. All future is fantasy until it becomes real and can be experienced. What makes the future ‘predictable’, and lessens the fantasy, is our ability to ‘reason’ and the potential to have faith’ that our reasoning might be well ordered. In ‘order’, for their to be truthfulness, a measure, meaning, and therefore reason, there has to have been ‘reason’ to begin with. Existence does not allow order to come from chaos unless first the chaos came from a departing, from that order, from which the chaos could once again be made whole. Closure does not come from loose threads unless gathered. The primary source of all things cannot be chaos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top