Christianity Illogical?

[davidv]

The whole story is an unverified description of something that allegedly happened - the supposed eye-witness testimony included. There is no way to verify if they actually happened, is there?

Oh, no. That will not wash. I know that it is the usual “cop-out” when something “unpleasant” deduction is reached. But here we do not talk about “parables” which could be interpreted different ways.

Nothing could be more straightforward than this:

You are, of course, free to say that it is just another allegory. But don’t be surprised if you will not be taken seriously. This kind of “explaining away” is the worst possible way to treat a difficult subject.

The phrase “of the whole Bible” is especially problematic. We all know (or should know) that pretty much whatever you want to “prove” based upon the Bible - or its exact opposite - you can search diligently enough and find a few passages what will support your position.

The solution to this problem is not referring to some authority, rather the honest acceptance that the Bible is a not a factual history book, just a collection of stories written by humans.

I am sorry I brought in the Bible. I should have known it would have been no better than referring to Grimm’s Fairy Tales. I submit that given your argument there is to solution to the “problem”.

 

[ateista]

I am sorry I brought in the Bible. I should have known it would have been no better than referring to Grimm’s Fairy Tales. I submit that given your argument there is to solution to the “problem”.

Well, no, you did not bring it in. I did, to show that the quote of John 14 cannot be reconciled with the lack of fulfilled promises. That is all.

 

[john_doran]

Well, no, you did not bring it in. I did, to show that the quote of John 14 cannot be reconciled with the lack of fulfilled promises. That is all.

jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles: he was telling them that he would do what they asked.

 

[davidv]

Well, no, you did not bring it in. I did, to show that the quote of John 14 cannot be reconciled with the lack of fulfilled promises. That is all.

Your statement regarding God’s unfulfilled promises, reminds me of an incident on a bus trip my track team mates and I were on on. Some of us who where familiar with the area were explaining that we were about to pass by an buffalo farm. One of my team mates authoritatively declared that that could not be true. As we passed by the farm, he refused to look in that direction. As a result he did not see the dozen or so buffalo that we grazing in the pasture that was visible from the road.

On the return trip he had somewhat of a change of heart and agreed to look as we passed the farm. As circumstances would have it, the buffalo that had been grazing in plain sight before were no longer visible. Based on this he again authoritatively declared that we had been lying to him all along.

I submit that you are in a similar circumstance. At some point in the past you were given the opportunity to see and refused to look. Now you demand a sign, and because you don’t receive it, you declare it all a lie.

During my morning prayer I came upon this devotional. It summarizes quite well my feelings on the position you have taken on this matter.

Some people think Easter 2008 isn’t as good as the first Easter. They think they would be transformed by the risen Jesus if only they could see and touch His glorified body. However, a sensory experience of the risen Christ is not what makes Easter.
At the first Easter, the risen Jesus invited the apostles to look at and touch His hands and feet (Lk 24:39). He even ate a piece of cooked fish to prove to the apostles that they were seeing His body and not just a vision (Lk 24:42). These sensory experiences did not give the apostles faith in the risen Christ. Faith comes not through sensory experiences but by spiritual hearing, and this kind of hearing comes from receiving God’s word (Rm 10:17).
After Jesus failed to instill in the apostles faith in the resurrection through vision, sound, and touch, He “opened their minds to the understanding of the Scriptures” (Lk 24:45). In this way, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus came to believe in the risen Christ after failing to recognize Him despite walking with Him for several miles (Lk 24:32).
Peter also emphasized meeting the risen Christ through the word. At the first Pentecost he preached the word, not even mentioning Jesus’ resurrection appearances to him (Acts 2:14-36). This Easter can be as good as the first, because Easter depends on faith, faith comes from hearing, and hearing is from the word of God.
[from http://www.presentationministries.com/obob/obob.asp”]One Bread One Body

for Thurday, March 27, 2008]

 

[ateista]

jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles: he was telling them that he would do what they asked.

That is a possibility. So you say that the quoted passages are simply a private conversation, which has no significance for the rest of us.

Now, you see, if that is your opinion, then you should also disregard the previous verses, in which Jesus says that there is no way to the Father, except through him. Naturally, that also pertains only to apostles being part of the same private conversation.

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Or does it? If and when convenient, the verses are “interpreted” in a narrow fashion, at other times they are considered generally applicable. Logical? Not by a long shot. Reasonable? Never!

 

[ateista]

I submit that you are in a similar circumstance. At some point in the past you were given the opportunity to see and refused to look. Now you demand a sign, and because you don’t receive it, you declare it all a lie.

You know, it is pretty funny that you and others declare authoritatively that I “refuse” to look, and I declare it a “lie”.

No, do not “refuse” to look, and it is rather presumptuous of you to insinuate it. And, of course, I do not declare it a “lie”, only an unfounded hypothesis. I try to stick the correct usage of words, and the word “lie” imples an intentional and deliberate distortion of truth. I certainly think that you are mistaken, but I would never accuse you of lying. (Elementary courtesy )

 

[john_doran]

That is a possibility. So you say that the quoted passages are simply a private conversation, which has no significance for the rest of us.

no, not that it has no significance - just not the significance you attribute to it.

ateista:

Now, you see, if that is your opinion, then you should also disregard the previous verses, in which Jesus says that there is no way to the Father, except through him. Naturally, that also pertains only to apostles being part of the same private conversation.

no, not necessarily.

ateista:

Or does it? If and when convenient, the verses are “interpreted” in a narrow fashion, at other times they are considered generally applicable. Logical? Not by a long shot. Reasonable? Never!

i don’t think “logical” and “reasonable” mean what you think they mean.

what’s illogical and unreasonable is for you to insist that your interpretation is the only logical and reasonable interpretation.

 

[ateista]

no, not that it has no significance - just not the significance you attribute to it.

Arguments?

no, not necessarily.

Hmmm, cherry picking? If problematic, it is allegorical? The part which can be verified (the lack of fulfilled promise) is allegorical or personal. The one which cannot be verfied (getting to the Father through Jesus) is factual or globally applicable. As the church lady said: “How conveeeenient!”

i don’t think “logical” and “reasonable” mean what you think they mean.

I am sure you have your definition. Mine is simple: “logical is what follows some axioms” - regardless of the validity of those axioms. Reasonable is more than that. It also conforms to reality.

what’s illogical and unreasonable is for you to insist that your interpretation is the only logical and reasonable interpretation.

You are free to present arguments and I will listen. A simple “ex-cathedra” type of “rebuttal” simply will not do it. I did not say that my interpretation is the only one which is correct. If you can show alternative ones, that is cool. I will not disregard them just because you present them. But appeal to some authority is not sufficient.

 

[davidv]

You know, it is pretty funny that you and others declare authoritatively that I “refuse” to look, and I declare it a “lie”.

No, do not “refuse” to look, and it is rather presumptuous of you to insinuate it. And, of course, I do not declare it a “lie”, only an unfounded hypothesis. I try to stick the correct usage of words, and the word “lie” imples an intentional and deliberate distortion of truth. I certainly think that you are mistaken, but I would never accuse you of lying. (Elementary courtesy )

The language used to to declared these things were certainly interpreted by me the in the poorer light. That I reacted this way to your last several posts caused me quite a bit of restrospection over night and I woke up this morning thinking about it. I felt summarily dismissed, denegrated and disrespected by the responses you made. I will continue to ponder how much of it was my bias. I humbling ask the same of you.

 

[ateista]

The language used to to declared these things were certainly interpreted by me the in the poorer light. That I reacted this way to your last several posts caused me quite a bit of restrospection over night and I woke up this morning thinking about it. I felt summarily dismissed, denegrated and disrespected by the responses you made. I will continue to ponder how much of it was my bias. I humbling ask the same of you.

If it could be misunderstood, then it was due to my poor wording. I apologize.

 

[john_doran]

Arguments?

well, i don’t need an argument that Jesus could have been referring to a different audience at the beginning of the passage than he was at the end…

as for an argument that he was so referring, i’d say simply that it makes the most sense out of the passage.

ateista:

Hmmm, cherry picking? If problematic, it is allegorical? The part which can be verified (the lack of fulfilled promise) is allegorical or personal. The one which cannot be verfied (getting to the Father through Jesus) is factual or globally applicable. As the church lady said: “How conveeeenient!”

it’s not “cherry-picking” - it’s making sense of a text. attempting to render all of the utterances of a speaker consistent with one another is standard procedure.

it’s the same process one applies when someone says “i have a million things to do”: they are either crazy, and really think they have a million things to do; or they do have a million things to do; or they’re using hyperbole. usually we assume the latter (if for no other reason, out of interpretive charity).

is that cherry-picking, too?

ateista:

You are free to present arguments and I will listen. A simple “ex-cathedra” type of “rebuttal” simply will not do it. I did not say that my interpretation is the only one which is correct. If you can show alternative ones, that is cool. I will not disregard them just because you present them. But appeal to some authority is not sufficient.

you seem to disregard any interpretation that eliminates the problem you think you’ve identified; any time someone points out an alternative and consistent way to understand the passage, you cry “foul - cherry - picking!”.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please take side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

 

[ateista]

well, i don’t need an argument that Jesus could have been referring to a different audience at the beginning of the passage than he was at the end…

That is not what I was asking. Indeed, I accepted that he could have referred to only the apostles. I concluded that in this case the other parts of the quoted text are also referring to the apostles, and not the general “audience”.

as for an argument that he was so referring, i’d say simply that it makes the most sense out of the passage.

Not to me, no. To me it makes more sense that he would include everyone - or at least those who approach him with “faith”. As in Matthew 17:20 where there is an actual audience (not just the apostles) he says that if you have faith as small as a mustard seed (a very small object indeed),you can order a mountain to move, and it will move. Why would that part refer only to the apostles?

it’s not “cherry-picking” - it’s making sense of a text. attempting to render all of the utterances of a speaker consistent with one another is standard procedure.

Really? I did precisely that when I said that if one part is personal, then the other part is probably personal, too. You violated your own principle, when you deviated from it.

It might be interesting to look at the original text. In English the word “you” can be either specific and generic, so it is ambiguous. Unfortunately I don’t have access, and even if I did I do not speak ancient Greek. Maybe someone else does.

There are many different versions even in English, and some of them say: “he whoever believes in me…”, which is definitely a “generic you” and not just the apostles.

you seem to disregard any interpretation that eliminates the problem you think you’ve identified; any time someone points out an alternative and consistent way to understand the passage, you cry “foul - cherry - picking!”.

If there is no supporting argument, only the declaration that “this” part is literal, while “that” part is allegorical, and the only discernible reason is that taking “that” part literally presents a dilemma, then, yes, I will cry “cherry-picking”.

 

[geekborj]

No, that is not a fact. It is something you and many others believe in. A fact is not subject to “beliefs”. Its significance of course would be.

Are you saying the existence of space, time, energy, fields, etc are facts? Aren’t these subject to “beliefs” as well? Aren’t these also “something(s) you and many others believe in.” (It is not hard for me to believe of course. I’m a man of science.)

Sorry, your trust isn’t applicable to me. If the Bible is correct, then a promise was made and broken. That is the plain truth.

I think you have to read the context of what Jesus was saying in the passage. Some things they say at those times are only clearly understood by those present. Look at what the Fathers of the Church has to say. They were the first who have written what was explained to them.

Maybe you use the word “scrutiny” in a different way than I do. To me the freedom to question includes that even the most fundamental assumptions can be examined without fear of repercussions.

Why? Are you being attacked by the “authorities of the Church” just because you want to believe on something other then the Church had firmly believed over 2,000 years? In fact, you are free to believe that God does not exist. What the Church wants to say is that if you don’t want to accept even the slightest possibility of God’s existence, then She can’t do anything for you and hence, you be declared out of her efforts.

As for the scrutiny, i think it is just imbalanced to attack the existence of God while not attack the existence of other explanatory guides like fields, energy, space, time, etc on what is observed by the senses.

Ateista, can you post your main points in clear words and point per point against Christianity? I just have a feeling that we are going around the same bush all these time. Going back to one detail and another not really sealing the argument.

In the end, it ends on a subjective justification since, as it appears to your arguments, it all depends on the person if he/she will believe in the evidences presented for a certain “truth.” I just can’t believe how you can believe Science when everything it offers are just “guide” for understanding and not really the truth about Nature itself.

Secondly, can you also point by point, post all the “truths” that you can “verify” and hence believe as opposed to the “truths” offered by Christianity?

No offense meant but i just want a straight point per point presentation of your arguments. Either your concept of Christianity is clouded by “different flavors” of Christian concept floating around. If you stick to one best, then and only then you can appreciate its consistency and historicity. I suggest you start picking a book or two about the Catholic Church not just any other “church” claiming to be Christian.

 

[geekborj]

You have given me a lot of answers, and I will attempt to respond. I cannot promise that I will be able to reflect on every sentence, however.

Sorry but this sounds unfair to me. I have tried to answer every argument you have around in this thread and you’ll just say not promise to “reflect” on every sentence i write? This sounds you are not really serious in finding the truth. Or at least trying to understand the position of those who believe in a God.

History can never “prove” anyhing since it is not a natural science. It can describe what allegedly happened, subject to the limitations and prejudicies of the historians. And yes, I am ignoring the testaments of a few thousand years, because they are irrelevant. One actual fact speaks clearer, than a thousand years of testimonials.

So, which “actual fact” do speaks clearer? Aren’t they just a figment of your imagination? Simply the compounded effect of neural signal into your brain and interpreted once certain chemical reactions happen or released in your body? If you really ask: “what is real?” then you have to really start with yourself and end up with: “I think therefore I am.” Help me with your argument about “facts” starting from this.

Now, in parallel, how do you even say that you are indeed “thinking” based only on the same statement, “I think therefore I am”? How do we factually define “thinking”?

Let’s remember, the point of this line of thought was that I am missing the direct sign, that the Church’s teachings are factual.

Direct sign? What direct sign? Would someone also accuse the Government of the same authority to implement the laws because the same person is just “missing the direct sign”? Aren’t we just confident that we can “repeat the experiment” and observe the same thing? Trust. That is what you don’t have in the authority (the Church) not on the facts.

Bill Gates is even richer, but I would not believe him if he asserted that he won all his money on the lottery. That is precisely the kind of “evidence” I am having problems with. Ambiguous, subject to misinterpretation.

I quite don’t follow you here. Finding the truth would be difficult for someone who don’t trust somebody else talking about something but only on what he really sensed or thought. At this point i remember the story of Doubting Thomas in the NT.

Circular argument! You assume that the Bible authenicates the Church, and the Church can direct you to the proper interpretation of the Bible. A true divine revelation should and would be crystal clear, it could not be “misread” or “misinterpreted”.

This is a really big mis-understanding about the Church. Note that there is no “circular argument” here. Foremost, the Church does not claim that “the Bible authenticates the Church.” In fact, without the Church, there is no Bible to start with. Why, because it was the Church who authenticated the validity of the Bible being consistent with what was already believed during the canonization of the books in it.

The Bible serves as a written account of what happened before. Thus, SUPPORTS what the Church has been saying all along. The Bible is there to SUPPORT that the same truth has been believed ever since it was revealed to her.

I pose this question: Suppose you were chosen by God and He revealed Himself to you. How would you convince the other people about this assuming you just stick to your own definition of “factuality”? This is exactly what the Allegory of the Cave challenges everyone.

The answer is: "of course I did not attempt to verify all that - personally ". Yes, I rely on others to do the “dirty” work for me. But that does not help your argument. Because I can do it, if I so choose. The so called reliance on authority (or testimonials) is only a covenient epistemological shortcut, to save time and effort.

Are these argument the same as “trust” in the accounts of those who do the “dirty” works? The Church has all the Saints, Doctors of the Church, the Fathers of the Church, etc, to do the “dirty” works for you when it comes to the existence of a God. Its the same argument.

It is not a substitute. Any and all of the discoveries of the scientists goes under scrutiny and is subject to intense “attacks”. The scientists are not above petty jealousy, they want their own recognition, so they try to drag down the others. That is my (and your) assurance that whatever emerges after this long “battle” called peer-review has a decent chance of being accurate. Of course it is not fire-proof, as zillions of examples clearly show.

There is no such process when it comes to the problem of religious assertions. Those only rely on authority, interpretations, testimonials.

Peer-review is only necessary when nobody really knows the correct answer to a given question! If someone would have known one thing all along, how would he say about it? In religious assertions, authority comes from those who have known it from those previous to them; those who have trusted that the individuals before them talked and testified that something really did happen.

These testimonials are not epistemological shortcuts, which could be circumvented if one wished to examine the “raw data” directly, because there is no “raw data”.

Are you arguing that unless you can use your senses (touch, smell, see) Jesus, you would believe in Him? Or that if you have sensed all the miracles performed as testified by the Bible, only then you would believe?

If you answer yes, then the same should be argued about the existence of Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Charles Darwin, and all the great scientists. No one should ever believe in all that they “allegedly” have said and testified as to their observation!

Let me reiterate: I am not asking for more, I am asking for the same.

So do i: WHY NOT ASK THE SAME? You refute the validity of a God when you don’t even flinch on the validity of those “facts” you claim to be true!

Yes, it is also questioned, as it should be. The Encyclopedia is not cast in stone. It is always subject to criticism.

And so does the Church. That is why there is always a Saint stretched over the timeline of the Church history. The same is true with Science (source of Encyclopedia), there is always a great scientist one time and another.

It always comes to that. How do you know that I did not? Because I certainly did and found nothing. Let me spare you the next question: “Yes, I looked long and hard enough.”

Ok. Now, i want to use your own argument as per your claim above. Can you give your proof that you indeed “looked long and hard enough”? Is there any proof that you “certainly did” and that you “found nothing”? Can you at least lay out in arguments your PROOF that you “certainly did” and “found nothing” after you had “looked long and hard enough”? Now, can you at least offer me any “raw data”?

Or do i have to take it from your word, just like i do for the word of the Chuch?

My parents.

What is your proof?

Assuming you can offer a good proof, then i ask the same of your parents’ and their parents’, ad infinitum. Who would be the last?

The world definitely exhibits order, but order should not be confused with design.

So, the same can be argued with the Scientific concepts! The Sun definitely attracts the objects around it, but that should not be confused with Gravity! Can i say that, too?

The world have been shouting that something is behind this World. Like: for every beautiful painting is a good artist, for every good software is a good programmer, for a very good imagination is a very good imaginer, etc.

Sorry, my friend. God is silent. He never answers questions or prayers. You may think that he sometimes answers with a “yes”, other times with a “no”. But you are mistaken. Even if God does fulfill a prayer (of which there is no evidence) it is not an “answer of yes”. If he does not filfill a prayer, that is not an “answer of no”. There is no communication, there are no answers. There is only silence.

Is that silence or refusal to at least listen? My sorry is for those who refuse to listen. How can you know if the water is cold when you have never ever tried to swim into?

Don’t try swimming in muds and puddles (“other” Christian “sects”) it will only make the experience worst; try Tiber.

 

[geekborj]

The whole story is an unverified description of something that allegedly happened - the supposed eye-witness testimony included. There is no way to verify if they actually happened, is there?

Have you not even read about the tons of books that were written as a CONSEQUENCE of what actually happened? Are not the recorded miracles as proofs a kind of verification? The existence of the very book called Bible including the un-canonized “gospel” proof of what happened? The very existence of a growing living Church is also a big testimony to that. Even the great “design” of this World has been shouting for a very good Designer.

Aren’t we just the Observer or are you arguing that we are but the creator of our own reality? But then, that would be circular because the answer could be just another creation of the same mind, ad infinitum.

As for the idea that “God failed his promise” as for those you “asked,” my question is: DID YOU EVER WAIT THAT LONG TO GET THE ANSWER? Did he ever say “at once” or “right away” or “in no time”? Would you think answering your prayer would not violate the DESIGN (e.g. free will of others)?

Asking a God of a proof seems to claiming that he/she can be the same God and prove to anyone that he exists! Now, let us presume that you are the God. How would you ever answer all the prayers at the same time? Isnt’ that asking too much of you to sweepingly answer all requests at the same time without causing more problems than the solutions? What about the requests of a “proof” of your existence so that at the same time, be JUST and MERCIFUL?

There are testimonies of a lot of people shows that there is a God who answers prayers, read the story of the Saints. Particularly point yourself on how they have prayed consistently and with belief.

The solution to this problem is not referring to some authority, rather the honest acceptance that the Bible is a not a factual history book, just a collection of stories written by humans.

The Bible consists of recorded events as testified by the writers. I don’t know where you got your allegations that it is a “factual history book.” The Bible is FOR THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD not for the history reason but for the same FAITH only. Not “just a collection of stories” but honest accounts on what they have sensed and experienced. The Bible is like a DIARY of the Church, only she can say what every word in it means.

We have history books for history’s sake.

 

[geekborj]

… appeal to some authority is not sufficient.

It seems that appealing to one’s self as the authority on the soundness of arguments is just as absurd.

The claim of the Church is that there is always AN AUTHORITY for every argument for truth.

Science does not claim that anyone has an authority. This is the very reason we need “peer-reviews” and presentation of evidences that are “repeatable” and “consistent” with what is currently “accepted” as fact.

Eventually, someone has to say that the “accepted” truths are really truth (or at least part of it). But Science can never find that authority. The Church teaches us that: that same AUTHORITY is that one God she has been testifying for over 2000 years!

If you are really into Scientific terms, you should at least first accept a POSTULATE that a God exists. Then derive some expected “consequence” of that postulate as a proof of the validity of the postulate. Does this ring a bell?

However, arguments against a God seems to sweepingly CONCLUDE His non-existence based on some biased analysis. Why not look for the one consistent explanation, just like how Science does? What if the Theory on the non-existence-of-a-God is just like the phlogeston theory? or the caloric theory? Are we just ignoring the proofs of God’s existence?

 

[ateista]

Are you saying the existence of space, time, energy, fields, etc are facts? Aren’t these subject to “beliefs” as well? Aren’t these also “something(s) you and many others believe in.” (It is not hard for me to believe of course. I’m a man of science.)

No, facts exist whether anyone “believes” them or not. The universe exists, the laws of nature exist.

Why? Are you being attacked by the “authorities of the Church” just because you want to believe on something other then the Church had firmly believed over 2,000 years? In fact, you are free to believe that God does not exist. What the Church wants to say is that if you don’t want to accept even the slightest possibility of God’s existence, then She can’t do anything for you and hence, you be declared out of her efforts.

Yes, I am free to disregard everything the church says. Are you? Fortunately today the church has no secular power any more - at least in most societies. But it still has power over those who accept its authority.

The point was that there is no freedom to question the authority of Rome, if you are a Catholic. There will be repercussions. There will be excommunication. The method of enquiry is different for science and religion.

As for the scrutiny, i think it is just imbalanced to attack the existence of God while not attack the existence of other explanatory guides like fields, energy, space, time, etc on what is observed by the senses.

The explanations are attacked. The facts are there to observe for everyone. God cannot be observed, can he?

Ateista, can you post your main points in clear words and point per point against Christianity? I just have a feeling that we are going around the same bush all these time. Going back to one detail and another not really sealing the argument.

Excellent idea. I have been collecting some points, but they need to be polished and refined. The truth is that personally I have nothing against Christianity as a belief system. As long as it is held as a private belief system, and does not aspire to influence politics, it is none of my concern - except as a fun topic to be discussed.

Secondly, can you also point by point, post all the “truths” that you can “verify” and hence believe as opposed to the “truths” offered by Christianity?

I already stated that the possibility of personal verification is the deciding matter, not actually carrying it out, because it is impractical. The truths of science are out there, they can be verified.

The “truths” offered by Christianity are based on magic. Resurrection? Magic. Walking on water? Magic. Virgin birth of a male? Magic. “Infinite” wisdom? “Infinite” power? All magic. Angels, demons, devil, eternal fire? All magic.

There is nothing - in principle - which can be verified by a skeptic. I may not be interested in personal verification, but the possibility must be there.

Now God’s goodness or love, that is not magic. It is an assertion, which can be verified, and the verification keeps failing. Love is either an empty word, or it must manifest itself in actions.

Let me point out: in my opinion Christianity is not necessarily illogical, but necessarily unreasonable.

If you accept God’s goodness as an axiom, then it is logical (but not reasonable) to say that all the observed and perceived lack of love is merely a “measurement error”. We are not capable of making an accurate judgment, because of our limitations. Yes that is logical, in its way.

If however, God’s goodness is a hypothesis, then it is not logical to disregard all those “measurement errors”. The testing of a hypothesis should never be clouded by preconceptions. If something seems to contradict the hypothesis, then it must be taken seriously.

In other words: “If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck”. It is not an elephant disguised as a duck. Our limitations notwithstanding, if God’s goodness looks like nonexistent, then it is very probably nonexistent - and to assume it is unreasonable and illogical.

No offense meant but i just want a straight point per point presentation of your arguments. Either your concept of Christianity is clouded by “different flavors” of Christian concept floating around. If you stick to one best, then and only then you can appreciate its consistency and historicity. I suggest you start picking a book or two about the Catholic Church not just any other “church” claiming to be Christian.

Now this brings up another interesting point. All “flavors” of Christianity claim that they are the one and only “true” flavor. (As a matter of fact, so do all religions…) Is there an objective way to decide to decide, which claim is true? Something that is compelling for all the others to accept your argument and abandon their “false” religion?

You know, that reminds me of another old joke: “Who belongs to a religious sect? Answer the person who attends a church next to yours”.

 

[ateista]

Direct sign? What direct sign? Would someone also accuse the Government of the same authority to implement the laws because the same person is just “missing the direct sign”? Aren’t we just confident that we can “repeat the experiment” and observe the same thing?

The government is based on coercion and force. Not a good example.

Trust. That is what you don’t have in the authority (the Church) not on the facts.

Of course I don’t. “Trust” must be earned. To use it as the “default” position is foolish and gullible.

From my point of view the church is a conglomerate of fallible old men, who have a vested interest in preserving their power over the population. Who hold totally unreasonable ideas about millions of facets of existence. Who have no ground to substantiate their views, except their own self-proclaimed authority. What is there to “trust”?

I quite don’t follow you here. Finding the truth would be difficult for someone who don’t trust somebody else talking about something but only on what he really sensed or thought. At this point i remember the story of Doubting Thomas in the NT.

And that is also a point which I have brought up before. If the story is true, then there is a precedent, then Jesus was willing to give direct evidence. Why is that a unique event? Other asked for the same thing, and their request is always met with silence.

This is a really big mis-understanding about the Church. Note that there is no “circular argument” here. Foremost, the Church does not claim that “the Bible authenticates the Church.” In fact, without the Church, there is no Bible to start with. Why, because it was the Church who authenticated the validity of the Bible being consistent with what was already believed during the canonization of the books in it.

If you equate the Bible with the “accepted” collection of books (called the NT), then you are right. Of course then the Bible becomes just another collection of ancient books, which is accepted by a certain group of people. Nothing special about it.

But you seem to forget that the Bible is composed of two different parts. The OT was around for many centuries way before there was a Catholic Church.

The Bible serves as a written account of what happened before. Thus, SUPPORTS what the Church has been saying all along. The Bible is there to SUPPORT that the same truth has been believed ever since it was revealed to her.

You mean the Church selected those books, which support the Church, and declared the rest apocryphal?

I pose this question: Suppose you were chosen by God and He revealed Himself to you. How would you convince the other people about this assuming you just stick to your own definition of “factuality”? This is exactly what the Allegory of the Cave challenges everyone.

I would not attempt to convince anyone else. God could reveal himself to everyone, if he wanted to. But I would be pretty happy with such a revelation and I would ask God to go and do it for everyone else.

Are these argument the same as “trust” in the accounts of those who do the “dirty” works? The Church has all the Saints, Doctors of the Church, the Fathers of the Church, etc, to do the “dirty” works for you when it comes to the existence of a God. Its the same argument.

No, it is not the same. Please let me tell you one more time, and then let’s drop it: “in science there is the theoretical and practical possibility to verify the claims personally, if I so choose”. There is no such method with religion. It is boring to answer the same invalid objection over and over again.

Peer-review is only necessary when nobody really knows the correct answer to a given question! If someone would have known one thing all along, how would he say about it? In religious assertions, authority comes from those who have known it from those previous to them; those who have trusted that the individuals before them talked and testified that something really did happen.

Right. They claim, and the only “proof” they have is their own claim. If you are willing to say that this is sufficient for you, then so be it. It is not sufficient for me.

Of course I bet that you are not gullible and do not use this “trust” method as a general principle. You do not trust everyone by default. Why would you?

Are you arguing that unless you can use your senses (touch, smell, see) Jesus, you would believe in Him? Or that if you have sensed all the miracles performed as testified by the Bible, only then you would believe?

I would have to believe - or more precisely, I would know. I cannot doubt the testimony of my senses. If there is one thing that a sane person can never do, it is doubting one’s sanity. Yes, I would be very skeptical about it. I would try to come up with everything I can to prove that this hypothical occurrence in not an illusion.

If you answer yes, then the same should be argued about the existence of Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Charles Darwin, and all the great scientists. No one should ever believe in all that they “allegedly” have said and testified as to their observation!

Nonsense. What they said did not disappear. it is still verifyable today. And when they were wrong (the Newtonian worldview) it was refuted.

Ok. Now, i want to use your own argument as per your claim above. Can you give your proof that you indeed “looked long and hard enough”? Is there any proof that you “certainly did” and that you “found nothing”? Can you at least lay out in arguments your PROOF that you “certainly did” and “found nothing” after you had “looked long and hard enough”? Now, can you at least offer me any “raw data”?

Or do i have to take it from your word, just like i do for the word of the Chuch?

You can doubt it, if you so choose. I do not “threaten” you with eternal damnation if you remain skeptical.

 

[ateista]

Are not the recorded miracles as proofs a kind of verification?

Not one.

Even the great “design” of this World has been shouting for a very good Designer.

Are you including leprosy, tuberculosis, heart disease, earthquakes, tornadoes, hunger, genocides in that great “design”?

As for the idea that “God failed his promise” as for those you “asked,” my question is: DID YOU EVER WAIT THAT LONG TO GET THE ANSWER? Did he ever say “at once” or “right away” or “in no time”?

Define “long enough”.

Would you think answering your prayer would not violate the DESIGN (e.g. free will of others)?

Unbridled free will is the dumbest idea for a good designer. I explained it many times before.

Asking a God of a proof seems to claiming that he/she can be the same God and prove to anyone that he exists! Now, let us presume that you are the God.

Well, that is a fun problem to explore. Let’s play with it. If I were the God as you imagine, the least thing I would do is “create” anything. If God is perfect and self-sufficient, there is no reason why to create anything else. What is point? To create an equal is impossible - supposedly. To create something inferior? Why? The very act of the alleged “creation” speaks of a “deficiency” of God, or asserts that God is not reasonable.

Only an idiot would “create” something for no reason whatsoever. Whan can a perfect, self-sufficient being lack? Someone else, to share his love with - is the usual answer. If that is case, then here is the analysis:

God wanted to have some others (humans) to share his love. God created this huge universe, in which there is one insgnificant planet with humans. Instead of simply sharing his love, he created them to be with “free will”, so they can “fall”, and he can be angry at them. Most of humans will never get his “love”, they will end up in hell. This is the very short analysis. The picture of God as you paint it is the picture of an idiot.

If God “needed” someone else to love, he could have created the humans directly in heaven, and share his love. Instead he deliberately “messed up” his own creation, and blames us for it. Can anything be dumber that this? I doubt it.

How would you ever answer all the prayers at the same time? Isnt’ that asking too much of you to sweepingly answer all requests at the same time without causing more problems than the solutions? What about the requests of a “proof” of your existence so that at the same time, be JUST and MERCIFUL?

The two concepts: “just” and “merciful” are mutually exclusive. The God you speak of is exactly like the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Something cannot be both “invisible” and “pink” at the same time. Sometimes “pink” and other times “invisible”, yes.

There are testimonies of a lot of people shows that there is a God who answers prayers, read the story of the Saints. Particularly point yourself on how they have prayed consistently and with belief.

And there many more who prayed consistently and with belief, and it amounted to nothing. But I want to point out that God never answers prayers. To fulfill or deny a prayer is not an answer. There is no communication, God is silent.

The Bible consists of recorded events as testified by the writers. I don’t know where you got your allegations that it is a “factual history book.”

I did not say it is. There are historically consistent event descriptions in it.

The Bible is FOR THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD not for the history reason but for the same FAITH only. Not “just a collection of stories” but honest accounts on what they have sensed and experienced. The Bible is like a DIARY of the Church, only she can say what every word in it means.

If it is, it does a poor job at it.