How could a sensible person believe in the bible?

[Smoke]

I guess because the universe is filled with matter, gases, and if you believe in the Big Bang, ultimately leads to stars, planets, solar systems, etc...

How could these things come out of nothing? It's hard for me to fathom all of these things in the universe coming out of nothing. The idea that there is a God that created these things is a little easier for me to grasp than the idea that the universe just came about.

How could a being that could create all these things come out of nothing? If there is a God who created the universe, he must be greater than the universe, and his uncaused existence is harder to believe in than the uncaused existence of the universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there is a God who created the universe, he must be greater than the universe, and his uncaused existence is harder to believe in than the uncaused existence of the universe.

To be honest, I've never found that argument to be particularly compelling.

 

[Smoke]

To be honest, I've never found that argument to be particularly compelling.

Any particular reason why?

 

[Reverend Chris]

33% of the world population believes in Christianity which would make sense they also believe in the New Testament. In my years on earth I have never found anyone that takes the Old and New Testament literally. Some and I might add most say that since Jesus came along we don't have to obey all the rules of the Old Testament. I have never found a satisfactory answer. Many questions I have about the Bible no one can answer. They all say, "Just have faith."

Ok have faith, what's wrong with that? Who am I to tell someone to have faith in a book is not sensible? They have the right to tell their children whatever they wish. Children grow up to become adults who can understand things on their own. I don't believe the universe was created in 144 hours. But thats me.

The whole moral of the story is I don't judge anyone. It's not my place.

 

[sojourner]

33% of the world population believes in Christianity which would make sense they also believe in the New Testament. In my years on earth I have never found anyone that takes the Old and New Testament literally. Some and I might add most say that since Jesus came along we don't have to obey all the rules of the Old Testament. I have never found a satisfactory answer. Many questions I have about the Bible no one can answer. They all say, "Just have faith."

Ok have faith, what's wrong with that? Who am I to tell someone to have faith in a book is not sensible? They have the right to tell their children whatever they wish. Children grow up to become adults who can understand things on their own. I don't believe the universe was created in 144 hours. But thats me.

The whole moral of the story is I don't judge anyone. It's not my place.

I have known many who take the entire Bible as published, verifiable fact. However, I opine that the only way the Bible can remain "sensible" is if it is understood in the proper context -- not as infallible fact that fell out of the sky in the King james English.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

booko

any athiest who doesnt believe in some kind of beginning is in denial. not unless you believe that the blackness of the universe came from nowhere, and before that whatever existed came from nowhere also. It takes faith to believe in the kinds of theories of science that exist today, Faith in the men who are doing the experiments, unless you yourself have extensively researched and done your own studies.

If a person truly wants to understand something that the scientist has theorized on then they would need to educate themselves. You look to other scientist who have evaluated and tested the theories to either debunk or confirm their colloegue's theory.

We know that it takes a male and a female to produce a child and we know what biological contrabution is needed from both of them to accomplish this. We know it to a mathmatical certainty. I'm quite sure when this was theorized some one else tested the theory to confirm it.

Why do some religious people contend that science is out to "prove" religion wrong? Science does not care. Most scientist don't care.

 

[Eraser Salad]

You can't understand, but that doesn't reduce the world outside to a 'gut feeling.'

All these analogies are faulty when God is being compared to something that's tangible.

Or do you simply want to elevate yourself with the asinine assumption that those who believe in God - the vast majority of the species - are your intellectual inferiors?

Firstly, I think it prudent to note the "vast majority of the species" believe your God is a lie.

But more importantly, you seem to take the position that I'm your spiritual inferior because I don't see your feelings as being one and the same as rational judgment.

I sincerely doubt that, and if you had the faintest idea what I was talking about, you wouldn't make such an inane comparison. The story of my theophany is not a pleasant one.

The story of mine is, so perhaps that's an indication my philosophy is the right one.

To be honest, I've never found that argument to be particularly compelling.

It's not an argument, it's the logical next question. If you're going to say God created everything, you need a better answer to "what created God?" than "shut up."

 

[Storm]

All these analogies are faulty when God is being compared to something that's tangible.

Firstly, I think it prudent to note the "vast majority of the species" believe your God is a lie.

How would you know? You haven't even bothered to find out what 'my' God is.

But more importantly, you seem to take the position that I'm your spiritual inferior because I don't see your feelings as being one and the same as rational judgment.

No, I'm just annoyed by your blanket dismissal. I can either believe my perceptions or not. Kindly explain to me how dismissing the evidence of my senses is rational.

The story of mine is, so perhaps that's an indication my philosophy is the right one.

Now that's just flamebait.

I notice you continue to posture rather than ask a simple question, confirming my initial feeling that you're not the least bit interested in actually understanding my side.

It's not an argument, it's the logical next question. If you're going to say God created everything, you need a better answer to "what created God?" than "shut up."

... and then you go and say something I have to agree with. Jerk.

 

[rojse]

33% of the world population believes in Christianity which would make sense they also believe in the New Testament. In my years on earth I have never found anyone that takes the Old and New Testament literally. Some and I might add most say that since Jesus came along we don't have to obey all the rules of the Old Testament. I have never found a satisfactory answer. Many questions I have about the Bible no one can answer. They all say, "Just have faith."

Ok have faith, what's wrong with that? Who am I to tell someone to have faith in a book is not sensible? They have the right to tell their children whatever they wish. Children grow up to become adults who can understand things on their own. I don't believe the universe was created in 144 hours. But thats me.

The whole moral of the story is I don't judge anyone. It's not my place.

Here is the point when we get into the argument about which parts of the Bible are facts, which are moral stories, and which bits are made up for whatever reason, and how exactly the Bible should be interpreted.

The problem with this is that if you ask twenty people their interpretation of the Bible, you end up with twenty answers. Who says which person is right, then?

 

[Tiberius]

A lot of scientists recognize from fossils of human footprints in dinosaur footprints among other things that man did indeed coexist with dinosaurs.

There's no conclusive evidence that they are human footprints. And quite a lot of evidence that they aren't

Billions of years is pretty hard to prove

There are lots of dating techniques that do the job quite well.

especially when we have found dinosaur bones with living red blood cells.

Correction - they found components of red blood cells, not intact cells.

Who has been brainwashed since childhood? Every year I went to school and every year they told me, "long long ago in a time far away a frog turned into a prince." In other words, "billions and billions of years ago a living cell was formed in the primordial soup and now here we are and your uncle was a monkey.

Well then, see which one has the evidence?

let me ask you a question - if you had never heard of the Bible or anything of Christianity, would you be a creationist?

 

[Jeremiah]

So, with that in mind, could some of my atheist friends take a few moments and demonstrate what you find inherently and necessarily "illogical" about Judaism and/or Christianity?

As theories I can not think of anything off the top of my head.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there is a God who created the universe, he must be greater than the universe, and his uncaused existence is harder to believe in than the uncaused existence of the universe.

To be honest, I've never found that argument to be particularly compelling.

Any particular reason why?

Sure. The real question is whether or not all natural events (and, therefore, the cosmos) are caused. If one believes this to be the case, then one must presume a supernatural agency not bound by this rule: God as supernatural agency becomes a necessary postulate - and there is absolutely zero basis for asserting that categories like 'greater', or 'more complicated' any relevance whatsoever when applied to the preternaturan.

 

[Smoke]

Sure. The real question is whether or not all natural events (and, therefore, the cosmos) are caused. If one believes this to be the case, then one must presume a supernatural agency not bound by this rule: God as supernatural agency becomes a necessary postulate - and there is absolutely zero basis for asserting that categories like 'greater', or 'more complicated' any relevance whatsoever when applied to the preternaturan.

Hmmm.... I'll have to mull that over. At the moment, I still think a being who could speak the universe into existence would be even more amazing than the universe itself -- and I think most theists would tend to agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I obviously wouldn't agree with that. To say that God has a cause would have to imply that there is one greater than God, wouldn't it? If God by definition is a supreme being, than whoever created him or how you came into existence would have to be greater than him. I don't really think about these certain subjects too often so maybe others would be able to pose a more convincing argument.

I think it's interesting that in many religions, the universe was created by one God or set of gods but is now ruled by another, who have either been conferred this power by the distant and mysterious creator God, or who have seized power in some sort of struggle. In any case, the problem you hint at may be more with assumptions about the nature of God than it is with the First Cause Argument.

BTW: Why do you take order of occurrence as some sort of measure of worth? Just curious.

 

[Jeremiah]

but if im right then good for me if God looks down on me with gladness,
if your right then all i did was be a good person to my fellow man all my life, and i was crazy but nothing bad happens to me when i die.
on the alternative if you spend your whole life shunning God(idea that he exists) then that can actually go against you when you die.
Im not guaranteed a reward after i die, but at least im not taking the chance of being punished either.

foa

It would seem to me that faith in God for reward or out of fear in not real faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, with that in mind, could some of my atheist friends take a few moments and demonstrate what you find inherently and necessarily "illogical" about Judaism and/or Christianity?

Off the top of my head (and specific to denominations that believe in Sacraments, e.g. Catholicism): the doctrines of Sacraments (i.e. rituals that convey Grace) imply that in some regards, God's actions are subject to the commands of humans. This is inconsistent with several other concepts in Christianity, including the omnipotence of God.

Also (and specific to those denominations that preach substitutionary atonement): God's requirement for Christ to suffer the punishment for the sins of humanity is logically inconsistent with the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent God that is also generally espoused by Christianity: for God to inflict punishment on the one creature in existence that is completely innocent (rather than simply erase the penalties of humanity's sins) is the antithesis of mercy and God is therefore not benevolent... unless God had no other choice, in which case He is not omnipotent.

 

[Jeremiah]

I have only ever heard one argument that makes sense. Things such as "I can feel God" anything beyond that seems to hold little weight.

 

[Jeremiah]

for God to inflict punishment on the one creature in existence that is completely innocent (rather than simply erase the penalties of humanity's sins) is the antithesis of mercy and God is therefore not benevolent... unless God had no other choice, in which case He is not omnipotent.

Only by "virtue of the absurd" is it a logical paradox.


-----

Your other example I have not given enough thought to comment on.

 

[Eraser Salad]

How would you know? You haven't even bothered to find out what 'my' God is.

If you were a member of the most popular sect in the world, you'd still be outnumbered by heathens over 2 to 1. Every alternative is a less popular deity.

No, I'm just annoyed by your blanket dismissal. I can either believe my perceptions or not. Kindly explain to me how dismissing the evidence of my senses is rational.

Your senses? Please don't tell me you smelled God.

Now that's just flamebait.

Actually, I'm just insensitive, but I think my point stands; by basing your philosophy purely in incommunicable personal experience, you downplay or ignore the conflicting experiences of other human beings. That's not rational.

You shouldn't think that my lack of expressed interest in the details of your theophany is a sign I've dismissed you as just another theist. I prefer to keep things impersonal - just this self-descriptive paragraph is painful - and, more importantly, the details of your experience don't change what I already know;

1. There is no tangible proof for God.
2. If your experience had complete conclusiveness, it would have received greater media attention.
3. Feelings lie.

I already know before you say anything that as real as whatever happened to you might have been, it lacks the conclusiveness I would require even if I had experienced it myself.

... and then you go and say something I have to agree with. Jerk.

Sometimes it's unavoidable. Heterodoxy is harder than it looks.

 

[Jeremiah]

Actually, I'm just insensitive, but I think my point stands; by basing your philosophy purely in incommunicable personal experience, you downplay or ignore the conflicting experiences of other human beings. That's not rational.

I am feeling happy am I telling a lie?