Blasphemy a crime under UN resolution

[macgamer]

If God is going to face palm anything this is it: (be warned this is a high likelihood of mental scarring)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8

[Haunted]

What I should have said is that if the claims of the Bible are not true, there would be nothing.

Let's examine this comparatively. If by 'claims' you mean something like vague like "the universe exists" then ok, granted. However, we might as well say that "if the claims of the Koran are not true, there would be nothing". If I just now write down a complete book of waffle, with the inclusion of something vaguely resembling "the universe exists" then we can also say that "if the claims of *insert book title* are not true, there would be nothing". You beginning to see my point?

If they are true and there were no Christianity, the history of the world would be very different and Western culture unthinkably so, but the universe and gauge bosons (possibly) would still be here.

Christianity exists. This we can agree on. What I'm trying to say is, if the universe is completely natural (implicity true since there is no evidence of anything supernatural but feel free to argue this point since this is god's last remaining gap) and that in this universe a sentient race of primates evolved (all true so far) and this sentient race enjoyed worshipping the supernatural (check) and that one of these particular supernatural clubs happened to focus around the figure of a Jewish man who died 2,000 years ago, even if he existed or not (also true), then how is this any different?

Without God, however, there would be no world. There would have been no big bang, no gases and particles before the big bang, nothing.

Again an assertion, again a failure to understand that it is unsubstantiated.

As for Christianity being a social club: many churches, unfortunately, have become little more than social clubs. Tea, biscuits, carpet bowls, embroidery, flower arranging... How nice.

Yes, those ones are. I have plenty time for the harmless CoE folks.

I'd argue Christianity, however, while, yes I guess it is a bit of a social club, is much, much more. A club where each spur each other on in knowing God better, in sharing each other's burdens, in honouring and worshipping our Lord and Saviour and in looking forward together to the eternal life that we'll share in God's glory. It's like no social club I've ever known.

But a social club of a sort nonetheless.

As for other religions, as far as I'm aware they all teach how to get to a god or transcendence or nirvana or something, Christianity is the only one where God comes down to man and the only one (as far as I'm aware) which promises a relationship with God.

And *insert religion here* is the only one that teaches *insert belief here*, what's your point?

Which makes sense.

You're hardly likely to say anything else. But with this you imply that all other religions somehow, don't make sense, to the billions of other people who worship something that isn't your brand of christianity.

Why create us just to lord it over us like someone playing The Sims rather than interact with us?

Why blame humanity for making the wrong choice when they didn't a concept of right and wrong before the apple was bitten and why let loose some asshole snake around your supposedly prized creation? We can ask "why do this *insert bizarre biblical thing* til the cows come home".
Also, your tune of "man was not meant to understand the bible" has now changed to "it all makes sense".

The Bible does say we cannot fully understand the ways of God, in fact it goes as far as to say God's ways seem foolish to man.

It's certainly a clause it needs to contain. It also contains another clause about doubters being fools. Very important if we want to sell the idea.

If God used human wisdom and human thinking to do things he wouldn't be that amazing, would he? In fact, he wouldn't really be worth worshipping.

He would be even more amazing. One of the ontological arguments makes the point that a better creation is one done by a lesser creator. What would impress you more, a quantum physicist deriving the time-dependant schrodinger equation, or a four year old? We would rightly attribute more praise to the four year old because he did more with less.

However, as I've said before and I'll say again, belief in God isn't blind faith, it isn't believing against reason or evidence.

So they say, and it's easy to see why it is said. But I would like you to give me one good reason to believe in your god starting from first principles. Something that doesn't rely on something else to prove itself, i.e. not "the bible is true because the bible says it is true".

I may not fully understand God, but I haven't just accepted what someone's told me nor what I've read in the Bible without questioning. If that were the case you'd have every justification in considering me a numpty.

I'm still waiting for this evidence you keep speaking about.

Incidentally, there was an interesting comment in the Telegraph along these lines today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... flict.html

Yikes look at this:
"Brain-scanning experiments carried out by scientists last week revealed that religious faith is embedded deep within key parts of the brain....the findings also highlighted a growing tendency for science to be used as a way of attacking religion."
This guy just doesn't get it. I suppose the scientific discovery of a spherical Earth was just a way of attacking the flat-earthers?
The thing to remember about science and religion coexisting is this. When science says "X is true", religion must say X is true. When religion says "X is true", science ignores it. It's a very one way street, and if your unwilling to adapt your holy books to get with reality then your religion is incompatible with reality/science.

i. I will not accept the burden of proof and I am not arguing that this evidence is proof of God or of the truth of Christianity. As God is not an empirical being he cannot be proven and comparisons with Father Christmas cannot be made. If you're willing to accept this, we'll proceed. If you're not then I will not take part in this discussion.

So what you're saying is "I can't prove anything"? This is what I was talking about above, you can't prove it without relying on pre-existing biases towards it's favour. You have to postulate god in order to prove god i.e. "God exists, look at what god did, god must exist because he did that".

I am not arguing that this evidence is proof of God or of the truth of Christianity

Then why waste time with all the talk of how people realise the truth of christianity through evidence if there is no evidence?

ii. I would request that you respond to what I've written, not what you wish I'd written or assume I've written and without putting words in my mouth. If what I've said is unclear please ask for clarification. I will do the same with you.

If I am antagonistic it is only to provoke you to clarify things.

[elyettoner]

Let's examine this comparatively. If by 'claims' you mean something like vague like "the universe exists" then ok, granted. However, we might as well say that "if the claims of the Koran are not true, there would be nothing". If I just now write down a complete book of waffle, with the inclusion of something vaguely resembling "the universe exists" then we can also say that "if the claims of *insert book title* are not true, there would be nothing". You beginning to see my point?

I think you know what I mean. How about we stop being fallacious?

Christianity exists. This we can agree on. What I'm trying to say is, if the universe is completely natural (implicity true since there is no evidence of anything supernatural but feel free to argue this point since this is god's last remaining gap) and that in this universe a sentient race of primates evolved (all true so far) and this sentient race enjoyed worshipping the supernatural (check) and that one of these particular supernatural clubs happened to focus around the figure of a Jewish man who died 2,000 years ago, even if he existed or not (also true), then how is this any different?

The assumption, as you've stated, is that the universe in completely natural. If the universe is completely natural than that automatically means that Christianity is false because there would be no creator God. If Christianity is a mere belief which is just held for fun than there would be little difference, the problem is that I don't believe that it is. Your premise needs evidence to support it and absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. How about showing some evidence which does not rely on the pre-conceived and unfounded presumption that everything can be empirically tested?

But a social club of a sort nonetheless.

What would make it otherwise?

And *insert religion here* is the only one that teaches *insert belief here*, what's your point?

That Christianity stands out, which doesn't make it true. I'm not arguing that from this point, but it can't be lumped together with all other religions.

You're hardly likely to say anything else. But with this you imply that all other religions somehow, don't make sense, to the billions of other people who worship something that isn't your brand of christianity.

That's exactly what I'm implying.

Why blame humanity for making the wrong choice when they didn't a concept of right and wrong before the apple was bitten and why let loose some asshole snake around your supposedly prized creation? We can ask "why do this *insert bizarre biblical thing* til the cows come home".
Also, your tune of "man was not meant to understand the bible" has now changed to "it all makes sense".

No, no, no, I never said man was never meant to understand the Bible, I said that the Bible isn't always clear and that man had to work to understand the Bible.

He would be even more amazing. One of the ontological arguments makes the point that a better creation is one done by a lesser creator. What would impress you more, a quantum physicist deriving the time-dependant schrodinger equation, or a four year old? We would rightly attribute more praise to the four year old because he did more with less.

But surely you can't create something better than yourself because you've had the capacity to create it. Sure a four year old would impress me if it derived the time-dependant shrodinger equation, but has one?

So they say, and it's easy to see why it is said. But I would like you to give me one good reason to believe in your god starting from first principles. Something that doesn't rely on something else to prove itself, i.e. not "the bible is true because the bible says it is true".

Now, now, this is unfair. You know very well that I dealt with the preliminaries to this in my last post. Indeed, you've commented on it below.

I'm still waiting for this evidence you keep speaking about.

Ditto.

The thing to remember about science and religion coexisting is this. When science says "X is true", religion must say X is true. When religion says "X is true", science ignores it. It's a very one way street, and if your unwilling to adapt your holy books to get with reality then your religion is incompatible with reality/science.

I was merely citing the article out of interest and didn't intend any comment by it. But if holy book were adapted (what do you mean by that?) they could hardly be claimed as true. To be honest, I don't understand how Christianity is incompatible with reality/science. Is this that pre-conceived idea that nothing which is not empirical can exist again?

So what you're saying is "I can't prove anything"? This is what I was talking about above, you can't prove it without relying on pre-existing biases towards it's favour. You have to postulate god in order to prove god i.e. "God exists, look at what god did, god must exist because he did that".

No, I can't prove it, I never claimed to prove it, but nothing can be proven without pre-conceived biases. Equally I invite you to prove that God does not exist without relying on pre-exisiting biases. I never claimed proof, I claimed evidence. Do you accept I don't have the burden of proof or not?

I am not arguing that this evidence is proof of God or of the truth of Christianity

Then why waste time with all the talk of how people realise the truth of christianity through evidence if there is no evidence?

Hang on, where did I claim there was no evidence? In that statement you quoted? Evidence is not the same as proof. You can have plenty of evidence of something without having proof.

What I should have said is that if the claims of the Bible are not true, there would be nothing.

Which claims? All of them, or just the ones that you interpret not to be metaphorical? I emphasised "you" because there are many Christians who would claim that it is heretical to say that any of the bible is metaphorical.

I'm pretty sure no one's ever claimed that Jesus' parables were anything but metaphors.

Ah yes... something I refer to as the Smug Club. Smug in the "knowledge" that they'll be going to heaven, whilst all those "misguided fools" get to dine with Beelzebub. I have personal acquaintances (unfortunately, familial) who go to church every Sunday and base the entirety of their life around their church. They don't buy books unless they confirm what they already know... and they don't listen to music unless it is "Christian". Basically, think of a family who won't buy any merchandise if it isn't by a particular manufacturer. And yet, despite cloaking themselves in everything and anything remotely inspired by Christ, they singularly and spectacularly miss the whole point of Jesus' message. They treat their fellow man like shit. Especially if they deem their fellow man to be anything other than Christian. Considering that (to them) any Christians who aren't Evangelical Christians aren't worthy to call themselves such... that leaves a considerable proportion of society open to abuse.

I'm very sorry to here that. I'm sure smug is often applicable and that's very sad, because Jesus demands humility rather than smug pride. But you yourself have noted that they miss the point of Jesus' message, and if they treat everyone else (their neighbour, you might say) badly then they're not living up to it. I might point out here that the Christian message is one which expects us to fail. We can't make it to God, we can't fulfil all his demands, so he pays the price we should have paid by his death. Now, this isn't an excuse for saying "Well, sod it, I'll live how I like", but it does illustrate that Christians, like everyone else, inevitably fail. Bizarrely enough, Christians are not an accurate representation of Christianity. I might also point out that very many do not shut themselves away in a Christian bubble. I happen to be a massive Rolling Stones fan and thought The God Delusion was hilarious.

Other than convince me that you are ignorant of the teachings of world religions, the above tells me that you buy into the whole trinity deal. Now... had I not managed to side-step Christian indoctrination, as a Christian I would be very clear on one thing: Jesus never said that he was God. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, he didn't even claim to be the son of God (other than the sense that we are all God's children). Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man. So - unless you're basing your assertion on some later re-writings and interpretations, the creator god has not come "down to man".

[/quote]

Bearing in mind that my comment was not intended as an in depth exposition of my knowledge of world religions, how exactly does it demonstrate my ignorance?

The phrase Son of Man should be read in conjunction with the prophecy of Daniel.
To be honest, I'm not a theologian and don't fully understand the Trinity. I accept it because it's been explained and demonstrated to me, but there's no way I have the ability to explain it myself. I'd suggest asking a theologian.

[exnihilo]

I'm curious to know, on the basis of your own admitted ignorance of other religions, how exactly is Christianity unique, how does it stand out precisely?

[elyettoner]

I'm curious to know, on the basis of your own admitted ignorance of other religions, how exactly is Christianity unique, how does it stand out precisely?

I'm sorry, I don't recall admitting ignorance, though I guess the comment in the above post could be read as such. Apologies. Whereas obviously my knowledge of other faiths is not as strong as that of Christianity, I wouldn't say I was ignorant.

I'll come back to this later. I need to get some lunch now before class.

[exnihilo]

Okay, forget about the admitted ignorance, but the second part stands, you presumably consider all other religions to be false because they don't accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour and place him centre stage. But who or what was Christ, because that must surely be the single most important question?

I find it interesting that you stand by the Trinity without understanding it. I'm always interested to ask practicing Christians about their views on the nature of Christ, especially ones who believe their flavour of Christianity is the only true one, it seems to me to be a fundamental question. Things like what is the nature of Christ? Is it one with God? Or is he of one substance? Or are neither of those correct? What about the Holy Spirit? Where does it stand? Third? Second equal? First co-equal? What's its nature? What's the Biblical source for it? Which of the OT prophecies did Christ actually fulfil?

All of these are questions that have riven Christianity since before Constantine and they have determined the character of the various Christian churches' theology they are, therefore, vital to any Christian - surely? Unfortunately, they never seem to be, and I'm willing to bet that most committed Protestants would be Copts if born in Egypt, Arians if born in Armenia, Orthodox if born in Greece and staunchly Catholic if born in Italy and, importantly, each one of those (and some thousands of others) take very different views on many of those questions.

[Haunted]

I think you know what I mean. How about we stop being fallacious?

Be clear, I really don't. Is there something wrong with my comparison?

The assumption, as you've stated, is that the universe in completely natural. If the universe is completely natural than that automatically means that Christianity is false because there would be no creator God.

why not just say god is natural? Plenty of other people are fine with that. But, I agree, this is a point worthy of argument, which we can do.

If Christianity is a mere belief which is just held for fun than there would be little difference

Ok, that's all I was asking. i.e. it is impossible to tell the difference.

the problem is that I don't believe that it is.

This is not a problem for me.

Your premise needs evidence to support it and absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. How about showing some evidence which does not rely on the pre-conceived and unfounded presumption that everything can be empirically tested?

You've identified the absolute crux of the argument. How can we know anything? Surely we have to make some assumptions in order to learn so isn't every system of knowledge built upon a foundation of sand? I think, yes, that argument can be made. I'll show you the assumptions I make:
1. At least some of the time, my senses feed me accurate information of my surroundings.
That's it.
From that we can all proceed to inductively determine the nature of reality.
Any assumptions you make (perhaps about god existing and his works) will also have to include my one; you will make more assumptions than I.

What would make it otherwise?

Nothing, I just like drawing the parallel.

That Christianity stands out, which doesn't make it true. I'm not arguing that from this point, but it can't be lumped together with all other religions.

Of course it can, it is another religion, of which there are many.

That's exactly what I'm implying.

Right, you must then also think that about 4 billion people are confused about their non-sensical religions. Why aren't they all converting to this amazingly clear version of christianity? Are you going to argue that it is because of lack of of exposure to this christianity? That if they really looked at it they would all go "blimey this makes much more sense than our culture's ancient belief system, come on lads lets abandon this whole thing and adopt this one particular interpretation of jewish prophecy". Nevermind the 38,000 different sects of christianity, only this one is the one that's true.

No, no, no, I never said man was never meant to understand the Bible, I said that the Bible isn't always clear and that man had to work to understand the Bible.

Really.

The Bible does say we cannot fully understand the ways of God, in fact it goes as far as to say God's ways seem foolish to man/

But surely you can't create something better than yourself because you've had the capacity to create it. Sure a four year old would impress me if it derived the time-dependant shrodinger equation, but has one?

What is this measure of capacity to create? Nature has, blindly, created all sorts of complex curiosities.

Now, now, this is unfair. You know very well that I dealt with the preliminaries to this in my last post. Indeed, you've commented on it below.

It's not unfair, I hold everything else to the same criteria, why should you receive special treatment?

Ditto

I have not been the one claiming the extraordinary explaining power of christian evidence.

But if holy book were adapted (what do you mean by that?)

holy books says earth was created in 6 days, science says no, holy book is wrong, or "oh thats just a metaphor".
Or explain how seed bearing plants coming before animals is supposed to be interpreted metaphorical when we know the inverse is true? Or birds coming before land creatures?

they could hardly be claimed as true.

Exactly.

To be honest, I don't understand how Christianity is incompatible with reality/science. Is this that pre-conceived idea that nothing which is not empirical can exist again?

If christianity says "x is true" but science says "x is false" then x is false and christianity is untrue/incompatible with reality.

No, I can't prove it, I never claimed to prove it, but nothing can be proven without pre-conceived biases.

So we can only prove the things we want to be true? Scientists certainly didn't have any bias towards big bang theory (if anything it was an idea that was met with some resentment) and yet lo the evidence for it has been discovered and accepted and we now know more about the universe.
I do not have any bias towards the idea that gravity exerts forces on objects. However, all I have to do is test the idea, to determine what's true. I do not assume that the universe is rational or that everything is empirical, that's just the way things have been observed to be. Every single time that 'magic' or supernaturalism has been investigated, every single time, it has been discovered to be not magic, not supernatural.

Equally I invite you to prove that God does not exist without relying on pre-exisiting biases. I never claimed proof, I claimed evidence. Do you accept I don't have the burden of proof or not?

I do not believe such a proof is possible. Indeed I do not believe "there is no god", I think the answer to be unknowable, but I choose not to believe in such things until such time as they are provable. Same applies to the celestial teapot. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Can you prove Thor doesn't exist? Can you prove *insert anything* does not exist? The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who assert. That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.

Hang on, where did I claim there was no evidence? In that statement you quoted? Evidence is not the same as proof. You can have plenty of evidence of something without having proof.

So quit stalling and make with this evidence.

[Humphrey]

Hmmm, it’s taking a while for this argument to get going. As regards the natural/supernatural distinction, this is largely the result of what I see as a massive ‘rebranding’ exercise. When the idea of laws of nature was proposed in the 16th and 17th centuries it arose out of a new view of the relation of God to the world in which God is more directly involved in the workings of nature. (The doctrine of the lawfulness of nature was believed before this by several Greek schools but almost always obscured by a stronger belief in fate, it was largely restricted to the sphere of morality) Descartes and Malebranche proposed this as being a more ‘Christian’ view of nature than the earlier Aristotelian worldview as it divested nature of all inherent powers and rendered brute matter subservient to God’s immediate Will, controlled in motion by laws externally imposed. These laws are mathematical because God was conceived as the ‘divine mathematician’. The necessary character of these laws was held to be because God’s will is immutable and the laws he dictates are unchangeable. Ironically as time went on, lawfulness has been taken to be an unremarkable feature of the world and the rational order of the world is simply assumed. Laws of God are now ‘Laws of Nature’. The credit then shifts from the Deity to the professional class that discovered them. The remarkable features of the universe are no longer credited to the Deity but now rather reflect on the scientific enterprise as the institution that has managed to uncover the workings of nature.

As regards the reality of the laws you can follow Kant and Hume in saying that laws of nature are simply due to our habit of attributing necessary connections to events or you can say they don’t exist. Unfortunately, for the most part, science operates on the presupposition there are real mathematical laws which dictate how things must be, an idea which is rooted in Judeo-Christian monotheism.

[Haunted]

As regards the reality of the laws you can follow Kant and Hume in saying that laws of nature are simply due to our habit of attributing necessary connections to events or you can say they don’t exist.

Existing abstractly is not the same as not existing.

Unfortunately, for the most part, science operates on the presupposition there are real mathematical laws which dictate how things must be, an idea which is rooted in Judeo-Christian monotheism.

I disagree, that the universe obeys mathematical laws is not a presupposition, it is an observation, and one that is testable.

[Senethro]

So the Theories of Relativity are wrong because Jew?

Edit: damnit haunted

[Humphrey]

So the Theories of Relativity are wrong because Jew?

Because Jew?

Well its an interesting suggestion, but not a novel one. For a while the Nazis did end up suppressing General Relativity because it was thought to be a ‘Jewish con trick’ by people like Philipp Lenard. The Communists also suppressed it because it was seen as anti-materialist and a challenge to Marxist-Leninist epistemology.When Beria pleaded after the Second World War that soviet physicists needed Einstein’s equations to build a nuclear weapon, Stalin eventually relented saying ‘Leave them in peace, we can always shoot them later’.

[elyettoner]

The assumption, as you've stated, is that the universe in completely natural. If the universe is completely natural than that automatically means that Christianity is false because there would be no creator God.

why not just say god is natural? Plenty of other people are fine with that. But, I agree, this is a point worthy of argument, which we can do.

It depends what you mean by "natural", I guess.

Your premise needs evidence to support it and absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. How about showing some evidence which does not rely on the pre-conceived and unfounded presumption that everything can be empirically tested?

You've identified the absolute crux of the argument. How can we know anything? Surely we have to make some assumptions in order to learn so isn't every system of knowledge built upon a foundation of sand? I think, yes, that argument can be made.

I agree.

I'll show you the assumptions I make:
1. At least some of the time, my senses feed me accurate information of my surroundings.
That's it.
From that we can all proceed to inductively determine the nature of reality.
Any assumptions you make (perhaps about god existing and his works) will also have to include my one; you will make more assumptions than I.

From your arguments I would also suggest that you assume that anything that your senses cannot pick up isn't real.

That Christianity stands out, which doesn't make it true. I'm not arguing that from this point, but it can't be lumped together with all other religions.

Of course it can, it is another religion, of which there are many.

But Christianity is the only one in which you don't work to get to God or transcendence of whatever, that's where the difference lies.

That's exactly what I'm implying.

Right, you must then also think that about 4 billion people are confused about their non-sensical religions. Why aren't they all converting to this amazingly clear version of christianity? Are you going to argue that it is because of lack of of exposure to this christianity? That if they really looked at it they would all go "blimey this makes much more sense than our culture's ancient belief system, come on lads lets abandon this whole thing and adopt this one particular interpretation of jewish prophecy". Nevermind the 38,000 different sects of christianity, only this one is the one that's true.

Obviously it's not just because they haven't heard the message of Christianity because if everyone who had heard it gave their lives to Christ we wouldn't be having this discussion. For those who have heard what it's about I think in some cases it's possibly partly because they haven't put the question marks down deep enough or have come at it from pre-conceptions? I don't know, to be honest.

No, no, no, I never said man was never meant to understand the Bible, I said that the Bible isn't always clear and that man had to work to understand the Bible.

Really.

The Bible does say we cannot fully understand the ways of God, in fact it goes as far as to say God's ways seem foolish to man/

Reread that statement. What is the subject under discussion? Not the Bible, but God. I never claimed that the Bible was un-understandable, I said that God's ways cannot be fully understood.

But surely you can't create something better than yourself because you've had the capacity to create it. Sure a four year old would impress me if it derived the time-dependant shrodinger equation, but has one?

What is this measure of capacity to create? Nature has, blindly, created all sorts of complex curiosities.

But I would say that nature hasn't blindly created anything, it was God.

But if holy book were adapted (what do you mean by that?)

holy books says earth was created in 6 days, science says no, holy book is wrong, or "oh thats just a metaphor".
Or explain how seed bearing plants coming before animals is supposed to be interpreted metaphorical when we know the inverse is true? Or birds coming before land creatures?

As you well know, there is disagreement over whether the creation account in Genesis is literal or metaphor. Using it as an example, however, doesn't show that "holy book is wrong", it shows that that the Genesis account of creation is not literal. We don't know whether it's intended to be literal or not, so claiming that saying "it's a metaphor" is an adaptation may not be true. I see no reason why it shouldn't be a metaphor; they are used throughout the Bible and in Jewish tradition to explain difficult concepts and I would have thought that creation is pretty complex. Certainly for the audiences of the time it was written the Big Bang would have been pretty difficult to explain. My own interpretation is based on evidence of science; I have three options: it's literal, it's allegory, it's false. I know it's not false for other reasons, literal doesn't fit in with evidence from elsewhere (science) there's it's allegory. Whether it's an allegory or not, however, it still states that God created the world which science hasn't shown to be false.

To be honest, I don't understand how Christianity is incompatible with reality/science. Is this that pre-conceived idea that nothing which is not empirical can exist again?

If christianity says "x is true" but science says "x is false" then x is false and christianity is untrue/incompatible with reality.

Based on the assumption that science is always right? I'm not saying science is false, but that's a pretty big assumption to make. But to move on from playing Devil's Advocate, because I think science is very useful and relativly trustworthy, other than creation I struggle to see where science and Christian teaching are incompatible.

No, I can't prove it, I never claimed to prove it, but nothing can be proven without pre-conceived biases.

So we can only prove the things we want to be true? Scientists certainly didn't have any bias towards big bang theory (if anything it was an idea that was met with some resentment) and yet lo the evidence for it has been discovered and accepted and we now know more about the universe.

No, we can't even prove what we want to be true. Big Bang theory hasn't been proven (please don't mistake that for a claim that the Big Bang didn't happen, I merely point out that the example doesn't work).

I do not have any bias towards the idea that gravity exerts forces on objects. However, all I have to do is test the idea, to determine what's true. I do not assume that the universe is rational or that everything is empirical, that's just the way things have been observed to be. Every single time that 'magic' or supernaturalism has been investigated, every single time, it has been discovered to be not magic, not supernatural.

I think you're looking at a God of the gaps. We don't know what happened here, so we'll say it was God. That's not the claim that Christianity makes. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm entirely sure what you're referring to when you say every time "supernaturalism" has been investigated it's been found not to be supernatural. Could you give a couple of examples?

Equally I invite you to prove that God does not exist without relying on pre-exisiting biases. I never claimed proof, I claimed evidence. Do you accept I don't have the burden of proof or not?

I do not believe such a proof is possible. Indeed I do not believe "there is no god", I think the answer to be unknowable, but I choose not to believe in such things until such time as they are provable. Same applies to the celestial teapot. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Can you prove Thor doesn't exist? Can you prove *insert anything* does not exist? The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who assert. That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.

Hang on, you claim that no such proof is possible but then state that the burden of proof (that which is impossible) is on those who assert. In other words, you're saying it's impossible but it's my responsibility to do it?

Hang on, where did I claim there was no evidence? In that statement you quoted? Evidence is not the same as proof. You can have plenty of evidence of something without having proof.

So quit stalling and make with this evidence.

[/quote]

Nope, I said I wasn't getting into this discussion unless you accepted I didn't have the burden of proof (which is not to say that anyone arguing from the other side does have it). As you don't appear to accept that I'm not getting into it.

(Edited numerous times from an inability to write decent English.)

[Senethro]

Equally I invite you to prove that God does not exist without relying on pre-exisiting biases. I never claimed proof, I claimed evidence. Do you accept I don't have the burden of proof or not?

I do not believe such a proof is possible. Indeed I do not believe "there is no god", I think the answer to be unknowable, but I choose not to believe in such things until such time as they are provable. Same applies to the celestial teapot. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Can you prove Thor doesn't exist? Can you prove *insert anything* does not exist? The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who assert. That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.

Hang on, you claim that no such proof is possible but then state that the burden of proof (that which is impossible) is on those who assert. In other words, you're saying it's impossible but it's my responsibility to do it?

Is this an unreasonable position? Its the one I hold as a technical agnostic, but functional atheist.

[elyettoner]

Hang on, you claim that no such proof is possible but then state that the burden of proof (that which is impossible) is on those who assert. In other words, you're saying it's impossible but it's my responsibility to do it?

Is this an unreasonable position? It's the one I hold as a technical agnostic, but functional atheist.

I think so for the simple reason that what we're discussing is not something empirical. Proof, or rather the illusion of proof, is only possible with the empirical.

Regarding the question above re. how Christianity is different to other religions:

All other religions state that it is necessary to work your way to God. The Jews, for example, have the Law, Islam has the Five Pillars of Islam, Buddims requires meditation and so on and so forth. Christianity says this isn't the case. God recognises we cannot by ourselves attain the holiness required to be in God's presence, thus he cancels that debt; he says there's nothing we can do. It says somewhere in Jeremiah (forgive me for not being able to give the exact reference) that our works are like dirty rags to God. Jesus therefore lived the perfect life that we can never live thus making him able to take the death that we deserve. Salvation is therefore a gift, what is called grace (Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me...). As a result, there's no feeling of needing to constantly strive and worrying about failing God, the price has been paid. The works aspect comes not as a way of gaining God's favour, but is the result of wanting to please God. I try and live the life God wants because it is the least I can do in return for what he's done and as strange as it may sound, it's not a burden but a pleasure to try to do so.

As for the Trinity; I was explained it and it made sense. It, again, wasn't something I accepted without questioning and in fact I was sceptical of it for a long time. I've come to accept it, at first with some scepticism. I don't fully understand it and I certainly can't explain it. God, that is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one and have always been there, there is no rank within the Trinity. I can't see how it would make sense if there were. But as I said, this is one for a theologian to explain.

[macgamer]

But Christianity is the only one in which you don't work to get to God or transcendence of whatever, that's where the difference lies.

I sense sola fideism. One can and must cooperate.

Whether it's an allegory or not, however, it still states that God created the world which science hasn't shown to be false.

Indeed, this is the key point, which leads nicely onto:

I struggle to see where science and Christian teaching are incompatible.

Fides et Ratio Haunted.

I think you're looking at a God of the gaps. We don't know what happened here, so we'll say it was God.

Certainly not. Less of the Dawkinite straw men please.

[Senethro]

ok, cool, now why does that difference matter?

Surely it would only matter if god was a great big douchebag who had cursed ancestral humanity with original sin?

gee thanks god thanks for forgiving me for something i didn't do

under other religions we are not wicked wretches and that sounds pretty cool to me

fuck you god

[macgamer]

gee thanks god thanks for forgiving me for something i didn't do

Senethro who is without sin. Original sin man's propensity towards sin, which through the grace of baptism and our free will we can resist.

under other religions we are not wicked wretches and that sounds pretty cool to me

I think you'll find that Christianity espouses no such thing. What you are describing sounds like the influence of Manichianism and other gnostic tendencies, which are pretty pernicious heresies. The Albigensians were a wierd bunch.

[Senethro]

still looks to me like we are being punished for something we are, not something we do.

might as well punish a fish for being wet

[Senethro]

If we are not loathesome in nature then why do we need to be forgiven?

If we are loathesome then who made us that way?

If we are irredeemable without help then what is the point of free will?

If the help is necessary then why offer alternative religions?

If there are many paths to God then why do most religions claim exclusivity?

If there is one path then why not make it apparent to our perceptions?

If God is good then surely he would allow a fair chance to all for salvation?

[exnihilo]

Skipping over the last couple of posts, I'm afraid you're just flat wrong about Judiasm/getting to God/the Law. Indeed, you could not be more wrong on that one. Senethro's last line there is a fundamental premise of Judaism, that Jew or Gentile anyone can enter God's presence.

Also, frankly, your definition of "salvation" as coming through grace alone is one which would not sit well with the majority of self-professed Christians. Presumably they are just wrong? Or are we just not going to discuss how only your kind of Christianity is right, how you know that, what specifically makes yours special, or how all the others are faking it?

On the Trinity, do you not find it odd that it has always been but it is absolutely never mentioned in the Old Testament where God is at pains to stress that he is one and only one? You seem to have "accepted" something without the least basis for having done so.

As a tiny aside, however, in what sense, macgamer, were the Albigensians a pretty weird bunch or pernicicious? I'm guessing you're not an expert on them because you're version of their view of original sin is at odds with the one I know of. Your post seems to fall into the same pattern we've seen a lot of "my religion is right, deviation from it is wrong. I don't know why I'm in this particular one, but I am, and therefore it must be right or I'd look a fool."