1. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    01 Dec '08 17:40
    I see the problem with Christianity as being, it has turned off thinking individuals from even sticking their toe in the spiritual arena. A smart friend of mine claims to be an athiest because Christianity is so nut's in so many ways, and God must be a fictional character because the Christian's paint such a looney tune vision of diety. There is great big world of other ideas on the nature of God that have nothing to do with the Christian concept. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. That is incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
  2. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    01 Dec '08 19:31
    Originally posted by buckky
    I see the problem with Christianity as being, it has turned off thinking individuals from even sticking their toe in the spiritual arena. A smart friend of mine claims to be an athiest because Christianity is so nut's in so many ways, and God must be a fictional character because the Christian's paint such a looney tune vision of diety. There is great big wo ...[text shortened]... incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
    So what do you suggest we do?
  3. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    01 Dec '08 19:333 edits
    Originally posted by buckky
    For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. That is incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
    As I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148414
    01 Dec '08 19:421 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    As I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
    Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
    never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
    the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
    was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
    apart on that point.
    Kelly
  5. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    01 Dec '08 19:502 edits
    Originally posted by buckky
    ...For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. ...
    If you understand the science of modern-day cosmology you should understand that modern-day cosmology does not say nor imply in any way that the universe came into existence by an “accident”.
    The main-stream big bang theory kind of implies that the berth of the universe was not a “caused event” nor even an “uncaused event” for it wasn’t even an “event”!
    I hope most atheists (like myself) understand this fact and thus don’t erroneously believe that the universe had to be created by some kind of “big accident”.
  6. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    01 Dec '08 20:03
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
    never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
    the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
    was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
    apart on that point.
    Kelly
    Everyone must 'fall apart' at some point - I cannot explain how matter came to be; you cannot explain how god came to be. The illusion is that the introduction of a god makes the question of Origin any easier.
  7. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    01 Dec '08 20:101 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    As I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
    Have you by chance been reading The God Delusion lately? 🙂

    Alvin Plantinga's article, "The Dawkins Confusion," confronts this problem head on, and quite successfully:

    "According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being." ) So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Dec '08 20:11
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
    never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
    the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
    was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
    apart on that point.
    Kelly
    I have corrected you on this once before. Not everyone believes that the universe had a beginning. I for one am not stuck on the idea.
    As for the 'falling apart' bit it is the erroneous conclusion of yours that makes us 'fall apart' with mirth at your failure to grasp fairly basic concepts.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Dec '08 20:14
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."
    I think he misunderstands what is meant by 'parts'. It is a well known fact that many Christians believe that God is made of three parts. at least. Just because God is not made of matter does not in any way make him 'simpler'.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Dec '08 20:18
    Originally posted by buckky
    For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. That is incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
    But does the use of 'God' get you anywhere in terms of alternative explanations and is it the only alternative explanation or even a reasonable one? And how do you define 'accidents' and why do you think their outcomes could not result in universes?

    You should also keep firmly in mind that incredulity and failure to comprehend do not make good arguments. In fact it is probably better to simply say "I do not know" than to try to make conclusions based on something being incomprehensible.
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    01 Dec '08 20:41
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Unlike the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall apart on that point.
    That's not an atheistic view, that's a scientific view. Christians, hindus, jews and atheists think the same in this case, that the thing is unsettled. Even if scientists don't know much about the pre-Bangian era, some fundamentalistic religious people think they know more but infact know nothing.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86276
    01 Dec '08 21:35
    Originally posted by buckky
    I see the problem with Christianity as being, it has turned off thinking individuals from even sticking their toe in the spiritual arena. A smart friend of mine claims to be an athiest because Christianity is so nut's in so many ways, and God must be a fictional character because the Christian's paint such a looney tune vision of diety. There is great big wo ...[text shortened]... incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
    What about Islam, Allah and Mohamed et al?
  13. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    01 Dec '08 22:24
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
    never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
    the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
    was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
    apart on that point.
    Kelly
    Well, not everyone says the universe had a beginning. There are a number of possible scenarios - discussed in the scientific community - that allow for an infinite universe or infinite multiverse.
  14. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    01 Dec '08 23:20
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Have you by chance been reading The God Delusion lately? 🙂

    Alvin Plantinga's article, "The Dawkins Confusion," confronts this problem head on, and quite successfully:

    "According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and prope ...[text shortened]... oses, God is not complex."

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
    I haven't ever read the God Delusion.

    And I don't see why it matters whether God is made of the same 'stuff' as we are, or no 'stuff' at all. God is complex in the sense that God knows all true propositions [omniscience] and designs other sentient beings. Regardless of the stuff God is actually made of, God has power to both interact with and know things about our world that cannot be called simple, at least not from our perspective.
  15. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    02 Dec '08 01:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But does the use of 'God' get you anywhere in terms of alternative explanations and is it the only alternative explanation or even a reasonable one? And how do you define 'accidents' and why do you think their outcomes could not result in universes?

    You should also keep firmly in mind that incredulity and failure to comprehend do not make good argument ...[text shortened]... "I do not know" than to try to make conclusions based on something being incomprehensible.
    The word God does cause problems. The old guy with a beard sitting on a throne seems wacky and childish. I do sense intelligence
    in creation. Have I turned that into personhood ? I don't know myself, but the idea that it all just happened somehow without purpose or intelligence is cold as ice and depressing. For me I need purpose and meaning even though I have no idea as to what the meaning would be.
Back to Top