Ignorant from the start

[Tart]

As quoted in another thread
"So this tendency that believers have to look towards the past as a time of knowledge and informed wisdom, is actually an ignorant position."

This is talking about looking at our past for knowledge... Like looking at a source from 2000+ years ago... Saying we would be ignorant to do such things...

Actually this conversation was specifically about Aristotle... For Aristotle was perhaps the first of the scientists, and Aristotle put forth scientific arguments for the existence of God... In his Book "Physics" (where the word comes from), Aristotle tells us that "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

Just the same as Newton... "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe."~Newton


These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist...


Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..


Isnt it just clear... The evidence is all on one side... The claim is that truth has a start, knowledge has a foundation, that we can learn truths from our past.. And this isnt even limited to our human history... Science itself is built upon our past experiences...

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

And where theist say that knowledge and truth has a beginning, from the start with God, and builds upon these things...


I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

[Clownboat]

Well you can be assured that I havent spent nearly as much time studying other gods as i have spent on Christianity... I have pursued other gods before i was Christian, wanting to know more about them, but that desire faded and died with each of them... Christianity was different...

So you have diligently studied one god and you expect that to count for something? That is not how credibility is earned I'm afraid. Not to mention, you don't leave room for an as of yet unknown god concept. You have decided which god you want to believe in and therefore have stopped further investigation. Why continue to investigate if you have convinced yourself that you have the correct answer?

I find your justification in pointing to the Christian god concept to be wanting, but I'm always open to examine evidence if you have any because I don't claim to have an answer already.

Well, the cosmological argument, the unmoved mover, teleological argument, induction, etc.. These are scientific arguments whether you want to accept that or not,

Numerous people have explained why this is not valid. No need for me to beat this horse.

but you are right, they dont point to any specific God, just God in general. Then from there if these argument for God are legitimate, if they were true, then we could conclude that there is a God somewhere... And the Christian God meets these requirements.

THAT is how you arrived at the Christian god!!! You have ruled out known god concepts and unknown god concepts because you think the Christian god meets the requirements. "This god works for me, I'm done"!
Allah meets them too, so your justification for arriving at the Christian god is not valid, not to mention what if there are unknown gods out there that you are unfairly ruling out?

I rather believe in Christianity because of the risen Messiah.

This is nothing more than an empty faith claim. Yes, I have no doubt that you believe this. What I do doubt is claims about a body that has been decomposing for 3 days where the organs have begun to liquify, is being claimed to have come back to life while at the same time numerous other dead saints also got up and roamed the streets.
All this because you read it in a book!
Proverbs 14:15 Only simpletons believe everything they're told! The prudent carefully consider their steps.
1st Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Thus scientific evidence helps confirm Christianity, but the case for Christ isnt rested on that, but instead on the evidence for Jesus as the Christ.

I will admit that most likely the story about Jesus is based off of a real person. That seems most likely IMO. However, if you have evidence for this Jesus, please present it. Even better if this evidence justifies the claim that he rose from the dead (along with all the other long dead saints).

Do you want me to build a case for Christianity for you?

No need, but it would be great if you would begin to provide the evidence that you claim is there. Remember, there should be no shame in admitting if something is your opinion.
Well, perhaps scrath that. If you believe your god concept is the type to spew you out for being luke warm, then by all means, claim you are assured.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 30 by Tart]

I am simply asking you to justify the things you are saying. You cant just claim things and then say "i already told you why"...

You started this thread, you made the claim that quotes from Aristotle and Newton were scientifically-based arguments and reasoning that God exists, and several people have challenged that claim as well as the unmoved mover concept. And my reference to the earlier posts in this thread (to avoid reproducing things already stated) is not violating the rules. You produced the OP and are making the claims ... so it is up to you to support them as per the rule you quoted. Re-read posts 25 from TSGracchus and 26 from Bust Nak, and my earlier posts, if you want to see why I said that certain questions were already covered.

It is a genuine question... Why do you say physics is not compatible with an "unmoved" mover...

See post 25 from TSGracchus for starters. But better if you can show us why it is compatible with modern physics. Again, you are the one making the claim that it is.

(mind you i have a college degree in physics).

Congratulations ... then put it to use and show us how an unmoved mover is compatible with modern physics, and counter the comments in post 25.

Ya... It is evidence that all motion had a beginning... That is exactly what the unmoved mover is about. Isnt it?

Well, then show us what this unmoved mover is and how it is compatible with modern physics. From Wikipedia:

In Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating.

Is this physics, or philosophy and opinion?

[Tart]

Well you can be assured that I havent spent nearly as much time studying other gods as i have spent on Christianity... I have pursued other gods before i was Christian, wanting to know more about them, but that desire faded and died with each of them... Christianity was different...

So you have diligently studied one god and you expect that to count for something? That is not how credibility is earned I'm afraid. Not to mention, you don't leave room for an as of yet unknown god concept. You have decided which god you want to believe in and therefore have stopped further investigation. Why continue to investigate if you have convinced yourself that you have the correct answer?

I find your justification in pointing to the Christian god concept to be wanting, but I'm always open to examine evidence if you have any because I don't claim to have an answer already.

Well, the cosmological argument, the unmoved mover, teleological argument, induction, etc.. These are scientific arguments whether you want to accept that or not,

Numerous people have explained why this is not valid. No need for me to beat this horse.

but you are right, they dont point to any specific God, just God in general. Then from there if these argument for God are legitimate, if they were true, then we could conclude that there is a God somewhere... And the Christian God meets these requirements.

THAT is how you arrived at the Christian god!!! You have ruled out known god concepts and unknown god concepts because you think the Christian god meets the requirements. "This god works for me, I'm done"!
Allah meets them too, so your justification for arriving at the Christian god is not valid, not to mention what if there are unknown gods out there that you are unfairly ruling out?

The reason i believe in the Christian God is because i believe Jesus is the risen messiah. I think the evidence is undeniable... That is how I reached my conclusion about Christ... I believe Christianity is the truth...

These other arguments, just support a god in general...

I rather believe in Christianity because of the risen Messiah.

This is nothing more than an empty faith claim. Yes, I have no doubt that you believe this. What I do doubt is claims about a body that has been decomposing for 3 days where the organs have begun to liquify, is being claimed to have come back to life while at the same time numerous other dead saints also got up and roamed the streets.
All this because you read it in a book!
Proverbs 14:15 Only simpletons believe everything they're told! The prudent carefully consider their steps.
1st Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Well we agree that Jesus Resurrection isnt naturally possible, where we disagree is that an all powerful God could have done this.

I dont believe in Christ just becuase its written in a book... Shoot, iv read much of the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and the Kebra Negast, and i dont believe those are true...

Thus scientific evidence helps confirm Christianity, but the case for Christ isnt rested on that, but instead on the evidence for Jesus as the Christ.

I will admit that most likely the story about Jesus is based off of a real person. That seems most likely IMO. However, if you have evidence for this Jesus, please present it. Even better if this evidence justifies the claim that he rose from the dead (along with all the other long dead saints).

Well the case for Jesus resurrection is a case for the reliability and authenticity of the scripture, and for its prophetic and all knowing nature... I mean, even when you accpt that Jesus might of existed, his existence itself is a fulfillment on prophecy... The date, the place, the physical existence, his death, etc... This is all prophetic...

When you start to agree that its possible Jesus lived, you are consequently starting to agree that the prophecy may have been fulfilled... If that happened, God is behind it.

I would encourage you to study that, afterall "1st Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good."

The promise God gave is that if you seek Him you will find Him. The reason i started seeking answers in Christianity was sparked by prophecy.

Do you want me to build a case for Christianity for you?

No need, but it would be great if you would begin to provide the evidence that you claim is there. Remember, there should be no shame in admitting if something is your opinion.
Well, perhaps scrath that. If you believe your god concept is the type to spew you out for being luke warm, then by all means, claim you are assured.

Ok here is the evidence... ill give you a really brief explanation of it... (Mind you, the debate is about whether or not Christianity is objectively true.)

That is to say, Jesus lived a life showing many great signs, he came in the fulfillment of prophecy, he was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins in accordance to the scripture and a fulfillment of the law, and was then resurrected as testified by the witnesses and their genuine and authentic beliefs...

I suggest this isnt only the best explanation for Christianities existence, but its the only reasonable explanation...

Or do you have a better one? (mind you this is about the objective evidence of whether or not Christianity is true)

[Tart]

[Replying to post 30 by Tart]

I am simply asking you to justify the things you are saying. You cant just claim things and then say "i already told you why"...

You started this thread, you made the claim that quotes from Aristotle and Newton were scientifically-based arguments and reasoning that God exists, and several people have challenged that claim as well as the unmoved mover concept. And my reference to the earlier posts in this thread (to avoid reproducing things already stated) is not violating the rules. You produced the OP and are making the claims ... so it is up to you to support them as per the rule you quoted. Re-read posts 25 from TSGracchus and 26 from Bust Nak, and my earlier posts, if you want to see why I said that certain questions were already covered.

It is a genuine question... Why do you say physics is not compatible with an "unmoved" mover...

See post 25 from TSGracchus for starters. But better if you can show us why it is compatible with modern physics. Again, you are the one making the claim that it is.

(mind you i have a college degree in physics).

Congratulations ... then put it to use and show us how an unmoved mover is compatible with modern physics, and counter the comments in post 25.

Ya... It is evidence that all motion had a beginning... That is exactly what the unmoved mover is about. Isnt it?

Well, then show us what this unmoved mover is and how it is compatible with modern physics. From Wikipedia:

In Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating.

Is this physics, or philosophy and opinion?

Post 25 about the unmoved mover contradicting Newton's laws was perhaps the only post that gave a reasonable response... However, we all agree that the Big Bang was the start of motion... right? Which i see no problem to assume this supports the unmover mover... Do you have a say otherwise?


Post 26, is simply retracted by the evidence for the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics...

Its pretty well supported that the big bang happened,and that a infinitely past universe would be impossible given the energy present now... In an infinite universe, the energy would run out.. This contradicts an "infinite regress" and it also support a beginning of the universe and its motion. So no "circular chain of movers"...

So science supports an unmoved mover and i dont see how it doesnt.. Now whether that unmoved mover is "immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world" id have to withhold my judgement about those claims and would have to ponder them further.

However, if Christianity is true, then so are those words from Aristotle... And my belief that Christianity is true is rested on Jesus as the risen Messiah.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

And Socrates was an atheist.

After 2500 years of no proof, why does no one accept that the atheist won the argument?
How about that Aristotle believed in a pagan god?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

And Plato was an atheist.

After 2500 years of no proof, why does no one accept that the atheist won the argument?
How about that Aristotle believed in a pagan god?

It has been remarked that you cannot reason a person out of a position that they weren't reasoned into. People will believe, without evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence, what they want to believe.

[Tcg]

It has been remarked that you cannot reason a person out of a position that they weren't reasoned into.

But that person can reason themselves out of a position that isn't backed by reason. All they have to do is begin to question and use reason to examine their own position. You can't force someone to do this, but once they start to question based on their own honesty, the end result will be disbelief no matter how strongly they want to believe.

Honesty is the rub. Not many are willing to risk it. Most will settle for comfort and conformity.

[TSGracchus]

It has been remarked that you cannot reason a person out of a position that they weren't reasoned into.

But that person can reason themselves out of a position that isn't backed by reason. All they have to do is begin to question and use reason to examine their own position. You can't force someone to do this, but once they start to question based on their own honesty, the end result will be disbelief no matter how strongly they want to believe.

Honesty is the rub. Not many are willing to risk it. Most will settle for comfort and conformity.

Religious persons don't want to reason themselves out of religion. If they did, they wouldn't be religious.

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.� ― Martin Luther

Reasoning, for religious people, is risking their soul. They dare not doubt dogma.

[Tcg]

Religious persons don't want to reason themselves out of religion. If they did, they wouldn't be religious.

Of course not. But if they do begin to reason, and are honest, they will reason themselves out of religion. As I said, all it take is honesty, not many are willing to be honest.

Reasoning, for religious people, is risking their soul. They dare not doubt dogma.

I did both and have no fear of losing my "soul". I'm fact, I have no fear of losing any of the imaginary things religion promised.

[Bust Nak]

Post 26, is simply retracted by the evidence for the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics...

Its pretty well supported that the big bang happened,and that a infinitely past universe would be impossible given the energy present now... In an infinite universe, the energy would run out.. This contradicts an "infinite regress" and it also support a beginning of the universe and its motion. So no "circular chain of movers"...

1) Big bang isn't a prime mover. Merely the earliest mover we are aware of. Multiverse is a thing in science you know.
1.5) And had big bang been the prime mover, then why propose a god at all? Worship the Big bang and be done with it.
2) In an infinite universe, the energy would run out if and only if you assume a finite amount of energy.