Bonky

There are numerous problems with the opening post but the one that strikes me the most is that even if evolution were false it doesn't mean theism is true.  This is key because this is posted under a "Defense of the Gospel" subforum and the post references the Bible. 

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Carroll said,“The multiverse comes to life by combining inflation with string theory”

So we start from a premise of two stories that are utterly unobservable and experimentally untestable/unfalsifiable. These are both mathematical constructs designed to solve problems facing the secular cosmology model.

Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he?  All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe.  We don't know enough to make dogmatic grand proclamations about how the Universe got here, I think that's fair.  Haven't we had mathematical models that made sense and later on we discovered they were right?

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Actually, given current knowledge, there is no plausible circumstance in which complex life can form from abiotic chemicals. Every proposed scenario requires conditions which are toxic to other functions necessary for life. So we can't even assess that probability. The best we can do is assess the probabilities of the resulting molecules (e.g. the probability of the right permutation of nucleotides forming a gene, or amino acids forming a protein). So "option #1 in this list" is moot at this point.

And given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise.  It's funny because there was a Christian cosmologist on the podcast listening to Carroll speak and I didn't hear many objections.  In fact Carroll was largely agreed with. 

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

If you are appealing to naturalism (and especially String Theory and multi-verses), you are appealing at least as much to faith as theists. Naturalism may be your “default position”, but it is not the objective “default position”.

It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.  

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

“I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns. He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God"”

I haven't read this essay. If you think he makes compelling points, I'll be happy to discuss them with you. I recall Stephen Hawking's response was akin to, 'in a multi-verse of infinite possibilities, it was sure to all come together in at least one universe', and that we are just very fortunate to find ourselves in such a perfect universe. I also read Richard Dawkins describe biology as the study of things which seem to be designed for a purpose – before going on to interpret the evidence in support of undirected processes.

Ultimately, whether or not the universe needs God is dependant upon whether or not God exists. No one disputes that there are secular stories describing a naturalistic universe. But intuitively, even to avowed atheists like Dawkins, the universe appears purpose-built for us – which is abundantly consistent with the Biblical model of reality; eliminating the necessity to believe in a series of events of stupendous good fortune.

Regarding Dawkins, I believe I've read that he stated that things can appear to be designed that aren't necessarily designed.   Snowflakes are completely natural phenomena but if we didn't know this and merely saw a snowflake [foreign to our planet] then we could easily be tricked into thinking they are designed by an intelligence.  I don't recall Dawkins stating that the Universe appears "purpose-built" for us.

Here is a sample from his essay.  I specifically went to the "fine tuning" section of his essay as I thought that would be quite relevant.  

This is taken from https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Quote

The multiverse comes to life by combining inflation with string theory. Once inflation starts, it produces a limitless supply of different “pocket universes,” each in one of the possible phases in the landscape of vacuum states of string theory. Given the number of potential universes, it wouldn’t be surprising that one (or an infinite number) were compatible with the existence of intelligent life. Once this background is in place, the “anthropic principle” is simply the statement that our observable universe has no reason to be representative of the larger whole: we will inevitably find ourselves in a region that allows for us to exist.

What prior likelihood should we assign to such a scenario? One popular objection to the multiverse is that it is highly non-parsimonious; is it really worth invoking an enormous number of universes just to account for a few physical parameters? As Swinburne says:

To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.[20]

That might be true, even with the hyperbole, if what one was postulating were simply “a trillion trillion other universes.” But that is a mischaracterization of what is involved. What one postulates are not universes, but laws of physics. Given inflation and the string theory landscape (or other equivalent dynamical mechanisms), a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not.

This is an important point that bears emphasizing. All else being equal, a simpler scientific theory is preferred over a more complicated one. But how do we judge simplicity? It certainly doesn’t mean “the sets involved in the mathematical description of the theory contain the smallest possible number of elements.” In the Newtonian clockwork universe, every cubic centimeter contains an infinite number of points, and space contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, all of which persist for an infinite number of separate moments each second, over an infinite number of seconds. Nobody ever claimed that all these infinities were a strike against the theory. Indeed, in an open universe described by general relativity, space extends infinitely far, and lasts infinitely long into the future; again, these features are not typically seen as fatal flaws. It is only when space extends without limit and conditions change from place to place, representing separate “universes,” that people grow uncomfortable. In quantum mechanics, any particular system is potentially described by an infinite number of distinct wave functions; again, it is only when different branches of such a wave function are labeled as “universes” that one starts to hear objections, even if the mathematical description of the wave function itself hasn’t grown any more complicated

Here is another section that I found compelling:

Quote

Cosmologists don’t have a compelling model for why the vacuum energy is so much smaller than it should be. But if it were anywhere near its “natural” value, we would not be here talking about it. Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other, and a value much larger than what is observed would prohibit galaxies and stars from forming, presumably making it harder for life to exist.

Other constants of nature, such as those that govern atomic and nuclear physics, seem natural by themselves, but would give rise to very different macroscopic phenomena if they were changed even slightly. For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible; if the neutron mass were a bit smaller, all the hydrogen in the early universe would fuse into helium, and helium stars in the late universe would have much shorter lifetimes.[14] (On the other hand, Adams has argued that a wide range of physical parameters leads to stars sustained by nuclear fusion.[15])

In the face of these apparent fine-tunings, we have several possible options:

1. Life is extremely robust, and would be likely to arise even if the parameters were very different, whether or not we understand what form it would take.
2. There is only one universe, with randomly-chosen parameters, and we just got lucky that they are among the rare values that allow for the existence of life.
3. In different regions of the universe the parameters take on different values, and we are fooled by a selection effect: life will only arise in those regions compatible with the existence of life.
4. The parameters are not chosen randomly, but designed that way by a deity.

Generally, not nearly enough credence is given to option #1 in this list. We know very little about the conditions under which complexity, and intelligent life in particular, can possibly form. If, for example, we were handed the Standard Model of particle physics but had no actual knowledge of the real world, it would be very difficult to derive the periodic table of the elements, much less the atoms and molecules on which Earth-based life depends. Life may be very fragile, but for all we know it may be ubiquitous (in parameter space); we have a great deal of trouble even defining “life” or for that matter “complexity,” not to mention “intelligence.” At the least, the tentative nature of our current understanding of these issues should make us reluctant to draw grand conclusions about the nature of reality from the fact that our universe allows for the existence of life.

I encourage you to read the full article.  Carroll doesn't seem to have an insulting demeanor about him that Dawkins or others may have.   One of the members here encouraged me to check out the "Unbelievable" podcast [Christian radio], which I did.  I was happy to see that they had Sean Carroll on there debating whether naturalism provides good explanations for our Universe.   I feel like he mirrors many of my views, the main one being that naturalism is my default position [today anyway] but if I honestly had compelling reason(s)  to believe in something above and beyond the natural then I would be intellectually obligated to acknowledge that and adjust my views accordingly.   I think Carroll also does a good job of not knocking theism as much as tempering their confidence that theism is the only game in town.  

For the record, I don't find fine tuning arguments to be bad or hard to consider.  I do find Theism in all of it's arrangements to be extremely ill defined and frankly empty considering it's claims.  Given my experience in life I've seen very poor evidence for the "power" of prayer, the idea of a soul, or the idea that theists have some edge over non-theists in how life is to be lived.   I find it very confusing that a God of logic and rationality would use the same tools and devices that every other religion use which are sloppily invoked and ill defined.  Theism is wrapped up in a dark cloud of what appears to be mystery after mystery and yet the primary claim is that the person behind all this wants a relationship with us?   Divine hiddenness is a major problem for theism in my view.  There are books written for Christian audiences on how to handle a shaking faith due to lack of feedback in any way.  That's very odd if your own followers are wondering if you're really out there and they can't seem to firmly conclude that based on their experience.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not sure this is a good example of god-of-the-gaps. In essence, it's a request for your model (which you have). But claiming that God to be the cause of our existence is not god-of-the-gaps (for a Bible believer). Since this is an explicit claim of the Bible, in our world view, there is no “gap” in knowledge. God-of-the-gaps arguments are rationally weak because of their arbitrary nature.

As a fairly common example, creationists are sometimes accused of claiming the devil planted the fossils (though I've never heard this from a creationist myself). Such an explanation would be a god-of-the-gaps-kind argument.

You objected but then repeated what I said.  If your theistic claim is rooted in the Bible because that's what you believe then I would say there's no god of the gap argument.  If you're tossing your hands in the air saying "Well how did this all get here" it's either a god of the gaps or argument from ignorance.  

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

The possibility of a multi-verse was earlier suggested. So for starters, out of the trillions and trillions of possible outcomes, we just happen to exist in a universe that is rationally ordered; where the process of space and time can be predicted by consistent laws of nature. But then to find a pocket of this universe that is a special exception to the rest of the universe; i.e. not saturated with high-intensity radiation, with a system containing a highly stable star, with a water-laden planet with an oxygenated atmosphere, rotating on an axis, in stable orbit around the star (the perfect distance form the star to maintain liquid water), with a magnetic field to protect the planet from solar radiation - i.e. a planet perfectly suited to life as we know it. Then all the constituents of complex life somehow found a way to fall together on this perfect planet (an accomplishment still beyond the comprehension of modern molecular science). Then a series of massively fortunate mutations of life's information system generating billions of novel, additional, functional genes (something yet to be observed once in reality), subsequently filtered by the environment to produce a vast diversity of species; each uniquely adapted to survival in their specific habitats…

So to summarise; every unique gene that has ever existed is the result of a 1-in-billions mutation event occurring in a series of such events, on a life that conquered as-yet unimaginable odds to form from abiotic components, on a planet which just happened to be perfectly suited to support life, in a system perfectly situated in the universe to support life, and all in a perfectly sensible universe having formed from an infinite range of possible outcomes.

I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns.  He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God".   

18 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Evidenced by nothing.  He was one of the greatest minds that ever lived.  If he was alive today I doubt he would care what some random guy on the internet said about him.

When I read about how Einstein is/was an idiot I think of the Princess Bride when Fezzick referred to Plato and Socrates as "morons".   I'm personally curious to see what Sabrina Paterski [the "next" Einstein] contributes to the field.  

On 12/27/2017 at 5:16 PM, Tristen said:

“That sounds about right but let me run something by you. This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it. We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate. They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this. I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works. Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational?”

There is nothing inherently irrational about this claim (given a supernatural premise), but it is a god-of-the-gaps type argument, and therefore a logically weak position. With Christianity, what you are disputing is the premise, not the conclusion. If the Bible claimed “Angels tell” animals where to migrate, that would be a more accurate analogy.

The Biblical premise makes logical provision for both natural and supernatural explanations (though as a rule of best-practice, only supernatural claims from the Bible can be considered authoritative – or else it's god-of-the-gaps). Naturalism explicitly excludes supernatural explanations (which are logically possible – regardless of faith) from any consideration.

To me a god of the gap argument is defined based on a principle, the argument has characteristics.  I would agree however that if someone truly believes the Bible then they are merely going with what they believe, their theistic claims wouldn't necessarily be a god of the gap.   As soon as I hear things like "Well how else did we get here"...that's a gap being filled with a mystery.  

On 12/27/2017 at 5:16 PM, Tristen said:

“What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation. I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one.”

I think the entire universe demonstrates an uncanny degree of rational order. Without this basic premise, the Scientific Method would be meaningless (so everyone is seemingly on-board with this premise). I think something as supremely complex as the simplest life falling together by natural processes defies credulity. Our planet exists exactly the right distance from our uniquely stable star to permit the temperature range facilitating liquid water (essential for life), on a planet with an oxygen atmosphere, protected from cosmic radiation by a magnetic field, in a stable part of the galaxy (free of the dangerous, high intensity radiation that saturates the rest of our galaxy).

There is therefore more than enough evidence warranting the assumption that there is more to our existence than natural processes. Given the available facts, I consider this argument to be overwhelmingly stronger than 'We, by stupendous good fortune, happen to exist on a ridiculously unlikely planet, in the perfect part of a stupendously lucky universe, having come into existence through one implausible, life-generating event followed by a long series of massively fortunate (i.e. evolutionary) events '. I therefore agree with Romans that any refusal to seek God leaves a person “without excuse”.

Whilst I find the argument for God much, much stronger than the alternatives, I would not class the alternatives as illogical. Though I subjectively believe heavy bias must play a role in one's capacity to dismiss the argument for a Creator in favour of the 'we're just very, very (very, very), very lucky' argument.

In a Universe where you have as many [or more] galaxies as pieces of sand on a beach, is it so wild to find a solar system that can support life?   Our planet is historically a planet of death just as much as life.  Most of the critters who have ever lived are extinct.   We are one meteor impact [the likes our planet has already seen] away from living in the stone age again.   I'm sympathetic to a deistic notion of a creator I guess but loving father figure who created the Universe specially for us?   

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd”

If I understand what you're saying, it's a simple matter of logic. Current observations of the natural universe can only ever inform us as to the current state of the natural universe. We can speculate/hypothesise/theorise what events caused those facts to be currently in existence, but the facts themselves don't give us that information. That speculation requires that we read unverifiable assumptions into the facts. There is no reason beyond personal bias to consider one unverifiable assumption any more valid than another. Neither the naturalistic or theistic history of the universe was naturally observed, so neither can objectively declare rational superiority.

That sounds about right but let me run something by you.  This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it.   We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate.  They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this.  I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works.  Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational?  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Agnostic faith places limits on what can and cannot be known - and so I think places artificial logic filters restricting any attempt to find God. Biblical Christianity makes logical provision for God revealing Himself to whom He chooses.

From my experience Cavlanism almost makes sense.  Maybe I'm not one of the elect.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".”

People who are secure and sincere in their faith don't permit themselves that luxury. But since all unobservable claims are unfalsifiable, that is a possibility for all such claims.

What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation.   I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one.   Our discussion seems to indicate it's not that cut and dry.

Merry Christmas by the way.

12 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think “the natural world” is awesome, but observations of “the natural world” can only directly inform us about current, natural phenomena (given the faith premise that we can trust observation). Which is just to say that the Scientific Method has limited scope. If we assume this is the only valid way to to investigate and attain knowledge, then we artificially restrict reality to observation – when there are other, logically possible, options available.

Making claims about either the past or the supernatural requires a starting position of faith, then applying that faith to the facts – because the facts themselves don't tell us about either history or the supernatural until interpreted to do so.

I wasn't rehashing the speed of light stuff, I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd.  We don't know what we don't know.

15 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I respect that, and would always encourage you to look into the various models for yourself (as I once did). Just because some answers aren't empirically available to us, doesn't mean we can't find them. Since faith is required to trust observation itself, even those answers we find empirically rely on faith.

The Biblical model claims that you can have personal access to the Creator if you seek Him sincerely – and that there is enough (in His estimation) information in His creation to warrant such a search. That is, the model provides for God Himself providing you with confidence in His reality if you are open to Him. That is something you can test for yourself. My concern is that you are using our ultimate reliance on faith as an agnostic excuse to not look.

Actually I came out of Christianity into agnosticism.  The world view I was given from Kindergarten on up was that the Bible was 100% true like it was a divine news paper.  Around the age of 30 I ended up a slow journey of leaving the faith.  I didn't find anything.  I did try though.

18 minutes ago, Tristen said:

That is one way to interpret them. The existence of multiple faiths perspectives is perfectly consistent with the Biblical model of reality.

My comment wasn't aimed at the Bible, it was aimed in general at all views which incorporate beings and powers and realities that are not of this world.   There's no end to the noise because there's nothing to stop someone from dreaming up whatever and it catching on.  It's depressing to me that Mormonism took off at all.  

25 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The concept of Biblical inerrancy is built into the faith premise, not subsequent to it. If, as we believe, God is real and the Bible is His revealed communication, then it is inerrant in the autographic manuscripts. It's just a matter of logical consistency – a perfect, omniscient God doesn't make mistakes.

You weren't born with this faith premise.  You somehow determined or decided that the contents of the Bible are infallible.   Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I think I have given thorough (perhaps too thorough) consideration of every argument presented too me. No one can claim pure objectivity, but I have endeavoured to be fair in my responses. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I operate under a bias, and that maybe there is something I have overlooked.

The point I was getting at was that you were essentially alluding to the idea that the natural world doesn't offer us enough answers [alone at least] to satisfy these great mysteries we have.  I'm saying we don't even know enough about the natural world to make this kind of claim.  You have no problem speaking of the Universe as a deep, dark, mysterious place that could be full of unknown wonders [speed of light/decay rate fluxuations] but in this context suddenly the natural world is limited and lame.

When it comes to mystical, religious, supernatural explanations I don't trust us humans to navigate any such thing whatsoever.  All we have is essentially speculation.  These views come in every sort of flavor, color, shape and size the world over.  Doesn't that kind of tell us we really don't have a clue?  So I get the idea of pondering these things or speculating, but building a foundation on this view that is then made "infallible" is just too much.   

9 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Well my question was just about as clear as I could type it.  I asked your opinion of the topic; you know, the reason why this thread was started. 

Look at Tristens response [first page], I think he/she nailed it.  Secular scientists also believe we're made of the elements we're surrounded with.    I wanted to add if we were made of something different that no other organism was made of then THAT would be compelling.  It would actually make us a separate creation from the rest of the animal kingdom.   

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

You have been given answers repeatedly, Bonky, and you continue to reject them.  If you don't want a person's evidence, the evidence that makes sense to them, you are spinning your wheels here.  Believers are not going to change their beliefs and give you what you want to hear.  Why do you think the human body mirrors the composition of the Earth's crust?

You may misunderstand my motives.  I'm not trying to change Tristen [or anyone else's] mind, I'm merely explaining my position.  

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last question other than maybe Genesis and man being made from the "dust" of the ground.

On 12/19/2017 at 8:37 PM, Tristen said:

You interpret God as an over-assumption. But I interpret naturalism as a much much larger stretch of credulity. The Biblical model of reality elegantly explains everything we observe in the natural universe – including the uncaused cause (i.e. an eternal Creator Who is not subject to causality), along with the inherent super-complexity of life, but even things such as beauty, mathematics and abstract thought. Many atheists claim free thought itself to be an illusion (which is logically self-defeating).

I remember you once telling me that we shouldn't necessarily object to something just because it goes against our sensibilities.   I think you're betraying your own advice potentially.   There is so much we don't know, to toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations is extremely premature based on our position in the Universe.  I believe my position is grounded more in humility and caution.   There are so many things that we've discovered in the natural world that are bizarre, crazy, weird, etc etc.   What else could there be that we have absolutely no clue about yet?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a being that created our Universe and everything in it, I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't.

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

Everyone "STARTS" with a faith premise. You are correct that for Christians, that assumed reality is theistic/Biblical. But assuming a purely naturalistic reality is just as much a faith premise as assuming Biblical reality. The secularist "STARTS" with naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic reality.

The logical methodology is identical - only the STARTing premise differs. But apart from that, in both cases, the facts are interpreted through the presuppositions of the interpreter.

This is readily demonstrated by the existence of alternative interpretations of the same facts. If a fact can be interpreted more than one way, then we can't legitimately claim that the raw fact supports one conclusion over another. We can't assume that one faith premise is more legitimate than another simply because there is one interpretation that is consistent with that premise. The preferred conclusion is influenced by presupposition, and not objectively derived from the fact itself.

Details which are explicit to the premise (like inerrancy and a personal Creator) are not additional differences. they are inherent to the premise.

So it's almost like you're saying over assuming things is just the same as potentially under assuming things.  To me the leap seems bigger to assume there are other realities above and beyond the one we know about [natural], than to assume natural is all we have and possibly be wrong about that.  I personally am not dogmatic about naturalism, there very well may be forces that are not derived from natural energy.  I just think that assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and frankly unwarranted.   I'm not closed off to the supernatural I just think it's an odd thing to assume.

Innerancy and personal creator may be explicit to the premise of the Christian theology but not to a non-theist.  Those are two HUGE assumptions that are added into the Christian faith premise.  So to me it seems that the theist bolts a lot onto their faith premise above and beyond a natural reality.   Keep in mind here I'm not at all talking about who's right or wrong, I personally don't think we can solve that puzzle [at least not yet or now].

On 12/14/2017 at 7:43 PM, Tristen said:

Nevertheless, even that doesn’t represent the logical process of Christians. Like everyone else, we start with a faith premise (Theistic reality). We are given a basic model describing that premise (the Bible). Then we consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. Secularists also start with a faith premise (naturalistic reality). They formulate models around that premise (namely Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry). Then they consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. There is no difference in methodology or inherent legitimacy.

Ok so the difference here is that the Christian STARTS with a theistic reality, that is a reality above and beyond the natural one.   Not only that I would argue theism implies a personal creator God who wishes to interact with the created.  If inerrancy is a part of the theistic/Bible model then that would be another key difference.  

I don't think from this we can determine who is right about reality [in the end] but I certainly don't see how they are the same in methodology or inherent legitimacy [at least basic presuppositions].

On 11/12/2017 at 3:03 AM, SkyWriting said:

I have held that Flood waters are not measured by post flood mountain heights.

The earth may have been reshaped or unaffected by the Great Flood. It wasn't
a "natural flood" so the effects are not predictable.

It wasn't magic water, it was merely "sprung" by supernatural means [allegedly].    

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I will work, guaranteed. I am under no obligation to believe that the persons you referred to have done so.

Whatever helps you sleep.

32 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

When did you choose to be a son of disobedience along with the rest of society ?

When did you choose to have more faith in satan ,

instead of faith in Jesus ?

Or did it "just happen" ? "not something you've chosen" ?

I've chosen to believe in things that resonate with me in some way that they are true.  By way of analysis, conversation, real life experience etc etc.  I also don't see what this has to do with the discussion.

50 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Turn it over Jesus and let Him deliver him  from those feelings.  

And if that doesn't work?  The context of my question was Christian men who WERE handing this over.  What did you think I was referring to? 

50 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The thing that separates me from them is that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and He lives in my heart in the Person of the Holy Spirit.   The Holy Spirit is the one who empowers me to live for Him.   And I turn everything over to Him and strive to let Him live through me.

Wow.  So the Jesus we hear about in the secular community is the one that will love  you and take care of you and allow you to lay things at the cross, that's there to "sell" Christianity.  Then when rubber meets the road we get this.  If prayer doesn't work blame the person, the empathy, compassion and respect are completely void in this kind of response.  I really do feel for gay Christian men who have to deal with this.  The one thing these men chose to do is to be a part of this religious worldview that views them as abominations....that choice is on them.

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is not the case at all.   He is not worried or upset.  He hates it and He has judged it.  And those who choose it, will go Hell. 

And the solution for a Christian man who has gay feelings and doesn't want them is what?

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I don't find any men attractive.  But there are men who choose to live in that lifestyle, to their own detriment unfortunately.

So the thing that separates you [don't find men attractive] vs. those men who do is what?   You're acknowledging yourself here that it's not something you've chosen.  

23 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Anyone can change if they give their lives to Jesus.  God has already told us in His Word that homosexuality is a sin and detestable to Him. He has already informed us of that.   God can deliver anyone from that vile lifestyle if they are born again. 

I would imagine if God is so worried and upset at this practice, then we wouldn't have any Christian men struggling with it.   I'll guess that you'll end up blaming the person, but why are there Christian men who struggle?   If homosexuality is completely a "lifestyle" choice, then what men do you find sexually attractive?  I don't find any, just women.

On 11/9/2017 at 9:25 PM, SkyWriting said:

If you are standing before God, He knows everything, so his conclusions are objective.
Anyone else has a subjective view of words, deeds, everything. 
I knew a blind student that could "picture" math and algebra.
Everything people experience is subjective. 

Including the experiences recorded in the Bible.  Unless you want to invoke special pleading.

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

To a psychopath the concept of empathy may seem like a delusion. Or to a colour-blind person, being told that something is green or red may seem like others are deluded. What evidence are such people given beyond the mundane tools of logic, reason and experience? Wouldn't you say that given your life experience and the arguments presented in this thread that believing there is such a thing as right or wrong is a mere delusion? It is delusional to think that cause and effect applies to the cosmos, such that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? 

Look at your examples of what some people think are delusions...one of them includes a psychopath.  I would think our discussion of morality should focus on the NORM not the brain damaged or similar.   

I have no issue with the idea that the  Universe has a cause, I have an issue with proclamations that the cause is a personal God who wants to have a personal relationship with us etc etc.  It goes deeper than that but what I'm saying is that a deist and I don't have much to argue over.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

I don't want to rehash all the arguments, but given what you've learnt here over the years, that it's possible to be a Christian and still be rational, thoughtful and of relatively sound. But I still can't help but think that your problem isn't with evidence. You accepted compatibilism because it's convenient to do so without even really investigating it. You admitted that the subject is new to you and yet you accepted it, just because you thought it would help you avoid the consequences of determinism. Isn't believing something just because it's convenient far worse than a Christian who at least knows why he believes what he believes?

I admitted up front that I didn't know much or enough about the topic specifically to temper my statements about free will.  I never said that I was rock solid with these terms or even their implications.  So I don't think it's fair to ding me on something I admitted I wasn't comfortable [knowledge wise] with yet.  I don't view Christians as inherently irrational or thoughtless.   

I will admit that many many times their explanations for WHY they believe what they believe are anticlimactic, or unimpressive I guess.   I don't think I'm being particularly harsh in my criticism either.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

As an atheist you must believe some pretty fanciful things yourself such as:

that there is no objective right or wrong,

that we are responsible for our actions even though our actions are determined by forces outside our control,

that universes can come into being from nothing,

that there is a multiverse that happens to spew out universes that are sufficiently random in nature to make a universe like ours a matter of statistical inevitability.

that science and observation are the only ways to find truth.

As such I think philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a point when he says that theism appears superficially to contradict reality but at it's core is compatible with reality, whereas naturalism appears superficially compatible with reality, but at its core, contradicts it. 

I mean, the problem you claim to have is that you can't see God, but the bigger problem with your view is that it can't see right, wrong, meaning, purpose, responsibility, and it needs to violate the laws of science to explain, the cosmos, why the world is the way it is, human origins etc. You could claim that you just don't know what the answers are because they haven't been discovered yet, but that's a tacit admission that when it comes to observable evidence, Plantinga is correct.

A number of the things you've put in here are not views that I espouse so you seem to be speaking to a group of people.  I don't understand the point of that. 

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

If you know anything about me is that I'm very much opposed to the anti-intellectualism that you find in Christianity. If your friend had done his Christian duty to address the questions of the human intellect as well as to deal with the issues of the human heart, then perhaps you would not have become so disillusioned. It makes me very angry when people honest questions get dismissed with this kind of pious-sounding mysticism.

Fortunately many churches are abandoning this romanticism and realising that Christianity needn't be sheltered from scrutiny but that it can stand its ground in the marketplace of ideas. 

It wasn't something that led me away from the faith, I'm sure he was just responding with what he was really thinking.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

I think a lot of atheists are brilliant, indeed. Sadly I find the popular atheists like Dawkins, Lauwrence Krauss and Hitchens aren't anywhere near as smart as some thoughtful atheist bloggers. 

I actually loved Hitchens but he debated with a cocky and snarky demeanor, but that was just who he was.  I didn't always see things the way Hitchens did but I always found him entertaining I guess.  Krauss is similar, I find him entertaining but he wouldn't be my first pick to debate a top tier opponent.  I think that's a side gig for him not a focus.  I listen to Sam Harris once in a while.  He's not as openly arrogant but I feel like he's fair in his approach to topics.

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

There is biblical support for blaming a person's misfortune on sin? Heck, no. Abraham's wife Sarah must have been a great sinner indeed. 

We all have horror stories about church, because church is made of people and people are messed up, unfortunately.

I won't say it was all the time but the common theme I heard through the years was that misfortune could be a time to reflect whether you were right with God.  Surely the Bible supports the idea of punishment and why couldn't barrenness be included?  My overall memory of church was that it was ok.  I guess I look at it now as an American cultural tradition that I took part of for a while. 

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with scepticism per sé. As long as it's applied consistently. I find many atheists aren't though. They're hyper-sceptical when it comes to claims that might favour Christianity and they believe any nonsense they find on the internet that is against Christianity. Christians are by no means immune to this confirmation bias, either, but Christians do not pride themselves on their scepticism and rationalism as atheists do.

That's honestly something that makes it hard for me to understand and embrace most religious worldviews.  I think there is a lot being asked of the reader to take things on faith.  Inevitably the blame goes to the skeptic because they should have ultimately known better.   Surely we don't treat each other this way in day to day life, we're usually happy to show other people "our work" so that they can see where we're coming from.  In religion it seems to often be viewed [skepticism] as an attack or rebellious action.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

Are you talking about positive arguments for secularism, or just arguments attempting to undercut or refuse theistic arguments? I have seen very few argument in favour of atheism other than the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil, and neither of those are considered compelling nowadays even among thoughtful atheists.

I would say counter arguments to theistic claims.  I am also going with my own personal experience that I really don't have a good reason to believe that the supernatural world really exists.  Or even if it did, to what extent.  I honestly thought that my departure from Christianity was going to be temporary.  I figured something would happen to draw me back but that never happened.   If I were to ever go back, it would need to be after I have a reason or reasons why I actually believed, not just doing it because that's what my culture was hip on.

8 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

What do you mean by tangible personal reasons? Are you talking about the personal experience, like a road to Damascus scenario where God reveals Himself to you in a clear and undeniable way?

I guess something that would tip me off that I'm not delusional.  No need for fireworks, but somehow affirmation that I'm not just just buying into fiction.

9 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

What do you mean by tangible personal reasons? Are you talking about the personal experience, like a road to Damascus scenario where God reveals Himself to you in a clear and undeniable way?

I think it was that I realized that I had no solid reason to believe what I was reading.  I don't know if I became a skeptic or if I always was but suppressed it.  All I know is that I was taught that the Bible was 100% truth from kindergarten on up.  

I remember wondering one time when I was in my early 20's, if what I believed was really true.  I was talking to a good friend of mine who was studying to be a pastor.  His dad was a pastor in the area.  I was trying to express that I had this thought that, what if I'm wrong.  I started off my sentence with something like "Did you ever look at opposing arguments and think....."  He finished my sentence and said something like "...You just know you're right."

I smiled and nodded, because I was too afraid to reveal that I was thinking the opposite.  

9 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Do you miss Christianity at all? I guess what I'm asking is whether atheism is fulfilling? Sure, if it's true then whether it fulfills or not is irrelevant, but is does seem rather dreary and bleak...almost conspicuously dreary and bleak. Many atheists now join "churches", in England for instance there's a "Sunday assembly", where they go to meditate and sing Elton John songs. 

LOL Elton John songs.  I tried the UU church after I became agnostic.  I actually loved it, I was dating a girl that lived near Penn State so I went to the UU church up there [she went there].  I got to see these brilliant well educated folks talk about their concerns, they voiced their values and beliefs.  Everyone was welcome, I truly enjoyed that time.  I just couldn't keep up with it I guess, besides we eventually broke up lol.

I can understand the thought of wanting to embrace the creator of our Universe.  I just never had a good reason to believe that is the case.  

I have mixed feelings about church.  I certainly enjoyed going at times, but there were things that occasionally bothered me.  For instance I remember my nephews wife couldn't get pregnant.  Word got out that my sister speculated that it was sin in her life that was robbing her of bearing a child.  That really hurt her feelings, but the sad thing is that there is biblical support for that thought process.  

9 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Is there a part of human nature that longs for meaning and transcendence? I think that tiny blip of the desire for meaning is sometimes the only signal we get, like CS Lewis said, "where there is a hunger, there must be something to fulfill that hunger". I can't help but think that our very need to meaning and transcendence is at least a small piece of evidence that there is something out there to satisfy that need.

I agree that's why I don't shut myself off from the possibility that God is out there and wanting some kind of relationship.  I just feel like I tried to hard and I guess my skeptical impulses started to get the better of me.   I started considering secular arguments and while not all of them impress me, some of them make more sense to me than what religion offers.  

14 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Anyway, since we're taking a break from ethics and so on, mind if I ask you something: I've noticed you mentioning prosperity teaching a few times in these discussions. What are you views on this, do you think the bible teaches it? Is it part of what led you away from Christianity? What do you think about churches that teach it? I'm not trying to evangelise you or trick you, I just want to know how you see it.

Prosperity teachings?  To me that sounds like the idea that if people look for wealth or material "fruit" from their prayers etc.   I don't know much about it.  I was raised in the Baptist church so I wasn't familiar with that.  We were taught to pray for people, not pray for things.

I slowly left the faith when I was around 30 [I'm 45 now].  It wasn't evolution or atheist arguments, it was just the idea that I didn't have tangible personal reasons why I believed, it was just what I was taught to believe.  I didn't feel like reality reflected what was taught in the Bible in many places.  It was a slow process and I prayed about it.   I didn't really feel/detect any answer and that fed my thought that maybe, this is just a belief that was handed down to me.

4 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Fair enough.

Perhaps you're softening up as you're getting older and wiser, yes? When you started posting here you sounded like steve_w who just be contrarian and unreasonable about everything. Now you're almost on the brink of being reasonable and pleasant. So all the years of you hanging around here has paid off, eh?

Honestly?  Absolutely true.  I've chilled as I've gotten older and I've learned a lot since being here.  I think I used to be more dismissive and cynical but that isn't helpful.    I don't want to live in an echo chamber. 

4 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Face it man, you can't get enough of us, because we Christians are way cooler than the atheist community, that's basically just full of smug, middle class, white guys who got too many participation awards when they were little and still crave validation. Fortunately most of the Dawkins generation atheists either grew up and got married, or has now joined Antifa or the MGTOW movement so we don't get too many coming here anymore. I remember when atheists used to outnumber the Christians in the outer court 5 to 1.

I guess the atheist community is just as diverse as every other.   I happen to occasionally listen to the atheist experience on youtube, there are atheists on there that are mild and looking to help and then there are atheists that are less patient and more combative.  I think this forum does an excellent job balancing things.  Some forums are very strict for non believers and some forums are so open that jerk atheists flood the place.  

5 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Sure, every single one of us are hypocrites, and sometimes we can be too sanctimonious, but what's the alternative, right?  

Anyway, I'm going fishing this weekend, so I'm in a silly mood already.

I hope you have a good one.

I'm going to try to read up on free will, but I have a feeling it's going to be dry for me