ma1zraa

It matters because it is not truth. What it seems to me that you are saying is that, even if it is a lie, if it makes me happy, then why not believe in the lie. It comes down to the idea that either you want to know the truth, even if it makes you unhappy, or do you want to believe the lie. Personally, I would rather know the truth. Crisor As would I. But that is the justification I can give myself to understand the position of theists.

Well, after a bit of a hiatus and some solitary thinking, I believe I have come up with a satisfactory answer. To explain it, I will use an analogy. Faith is like love. Love is an irrational, unwarranted emotion that we have from time to time. We can, to an extent, control that love. We cannot chose who to love, or when, but we can choose to act on it and acknowledge it. If we choose to ignore it, we make ourselves less vulnerable and prevent loss. But if we open up to love, we allow ourselves great joy. The same holds true to faith. It may be irrational, foolish, illogical, and downright unwarranted, but if it makes us happier, what does that matter? This appears to be the only solid proof for a god I can find. It still, however, does not lend much more credence to one belief in god versus another. Rather, it seems to support an individual god, more like Luther's god than the Catholic god.

To accept that is to accept that nothing is true and nothing is false. To dismiss logic as flawed is to dismiss the abilities man has gained from logic, abilites that in my mind separate us from animals. If we are to dismiss reasoning, we can no longer be categorized as sentient beings. To give up logic is to revert to the stages of infantilism. Man's logic has only been flawed when it isn't logic. That statement is foolish. What you are defining as logic is not the formal logic of philosophy, but the political and social actions of man. When we throw logic to the wind, we commit the atrocites and foolish mistakes of our history.

One does not do that by walking into someones "church" and denouncing what others consider sacred. You cannot expect to come to a Christian site, throw our Scriptures on the ground and stand on them claiming your superiority over them. That is not neutral in my eyes. Give me actual"proof" that you're full after you've eaten Give me actual "proof" that you're in love Give me actual "proof" that equestrians love horses Give me actual "proof" of the exact temperature of the sun I need not give you proof that God exists, to the contrary, as others have said here, give me proof that He doesn't. 1Corinthians 1:18-25 For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the perceiving ones." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For the Jews ask for a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness. But to them, the called-out ones, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and the weak thing of God is stronger than men. God Bless in His service -CC- I am neutral because I do not seek to oppose anyone for any other reason than the pursuit of truth. If I am not neutral, than what is your definition of neutral? I do not claim myself to be superior to your scripture, however I do claim proper reason and logic to be superior to all forms of dogma. I came to a Christian site because I thought that Christians would have logical reasons to back up their faith, and I was curious to see them. I am afraid all of that is very poor logic. You needn't become angered at what I say, I mean no disrespect, I merely am trying to get an intellegent convesrsation to flow. Your three comments about fullness, horses and love are all quite different than the concept of god. To propose that god exists is to make a very important and sweeping declaration about the external universe. It is a statement about the state of the world, the world outside of one's own free consciousness. The three comments, however, are all statements about one's own internal universe. The fact that I love someone does not affect the actual state of the world. As well, I can, over time, decide to change any of those things. They are not truths, but feelings and emotions. Nothing tangible exists out of mere emotion. Emotion can drive tangible beings, but a tangible being cannot exist solely due to emotion. The fourth statement is irrelevant both because the temperature of the sun is not static and because we CAN prove the temperature of a given spot at a given time. We know the emission spectra of hydrogen isotopes and helium-4, and using simple equations based on the energy of infrared photons emitted by the sun, we can gauge its temperature. Math is quite different than philosophy. The main flaw to your logic is the burden of proof logical fallacy. If the burden of proof rested on the accuser, then it allows for all kinds of silly presumptions. After all, if the burden lay upon the accuser, then we could assume that all people who claim to have seen ghosts have, because we can't prove that they haven't. We could assume that all people who believed in alien abductions are correct, because we can't prove they weren't abducted. To base one's faith in god on a logical fallacy is a dangerous thing in my mind.

It is not "believed" to be divinely inspired revelation, IT IS !!! The fact that you can't believe that does not diminish it's standing. Not much convinces a "student of reason" anything, much less the truth about our glorious God, as they are tossed about to and fro by any new "proof" that may confound their original "proof". We are rock solid in our beliefs, you might learn something from THAT. Again, forgive me if I seem curt. But I do not take this disrespect of my God's credibility or sovereignty lightly. Mercy and peace to you in His service -CC- I am afraid that human reasoning and intellect, as Aristotle believed, is the only thing that gives us a mind different than the beasts that walk the earth. To suggest that the nature of god is completely adverse to that reality suggests that we are not his children. A god that is utterly beyond reason is a god that is utterly alien to the human spirit. To throw around big, sweeping, capitalized statements like scripture "IS" divinely inspired requires a bit more evidence than none. I can scream as loud as I want that my fantasy novels are the direct writings of god, and it doesn't matter how loud I scream or whether 5 billion people scream along side me: it doesn't make it true. Anyone can produce a big, lengthy religous text. What makes yours better than the next guys? [Hint: it isn't because you "have faith", because be sure that he has it too] I am sorry that you are offended by what I ask, but I will not apologize for making neutral, tolerant, and simply philosophical inquests into the nature of religion.

It's a good question isnt it..? Why choose Christianity...? The only real answer that one can give when asked the question, Why Christianity? What do you find in Christianity that you cannot find in any other religion is...Christ. You find Christ. Christianity is centred around Christ, the forgiveness of a mans sins made possible through the work of Christ on the cross. The grace of God in making atonement for our sins by choosing to be merciful to the subjects of his wrath. Every other form of religion relies on a form of works that a person is able to achieve a status of being right with God through the undertaking of adherence to a set of laws or self imposed rules. As if we by our own doing are able to undo the wrongs we have committed in our lives. The basic problem with a mans sinful nature is that it is impossible for a man to be intellectually honest with himself about the true state of his very own soul before God, should God be the ultimate Judge. You see God has chosen to deal with souls of men in a very different way to what a man would like to believe...God does not deal with a mans soul through the door of reason or intellectualism. He goes so far as to say, "if any man thinks he is wise he ought to become a fool." "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." He also says that "the wicked through the pride of their countenance do not seek God, there is no room in all their thoughts for God." A man is an enemy of God and is dead to God until he is Born again of the Spirit. This is Gods way of reconciling men back to himself. He does this through Jesus. You must remember that for the measure of forgiveness God has offered to be validated through the work of Christ, it is essential that Jesus IS God. Otherwise we are going to merely a stranger to receive forgiveness for sins against God. You can only be forgiven by the one whom you have committed the offense against..True..? Asking questions based on a false premise of who God IS serves only to attempt to justify ones self by condemning God. There is nothing wrong with God. It is WE who are sinners. Jesus said these words. "I came not for the righteous but for the sinner." This is not Jesus way of saying only the sinner needs saving. He is saying that for one to be saved he must swallow his pride and humbly come before God in an attitude of repentance. "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." If you arent a sinner then Jesus didnt come for you. You cannot come to God with a wrong perception of who he IS...We are all sinners and all deserving of Hell because we are sinners. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift from God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. The truth here is this. You can be absolutely certain that you stand before Jesus on Judgement day. If he is not your Lord and saviour, he will be your Judge. "for every knee shall bow and every tongue WILL confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the father." Today is the day of salvation. Today is the time of grace and mercy before the time of Judgement. Gods mercy always precedes his judgement, and he is the Perfect Judge...There will be no excuses. God will lay everything bare for you to see, even the secrets that no one else knows about. Hell awaits the man who dies Christless...Why..? Because without Gods forgiveness you have chosen to carry your lifetime of unforgiven sins on your own back for all eternity...You are challenging God to judge you by the laws, the 10 Commandments..which you have already broken....Do not be fooled either..If you think that Gods laws are not important to HIM, then I beg you to look at the Christ on the cross. Whipped, beaten, bloodied and tortured. That was the wages of sin. It should have been you and I. Thanks be to God for his amazing grace. In summing up, the other religions try to earn Gods favour....Christianity simply receives it as the gift that it IS...Christ is Gods righteousness. In HIM, we become the righteousness of God. Buddha, and Mohammed were sinners.. Jesus was withOUT sin. I hope this helps. Regards, Ben. I understand where you are coming from. I can see why all your arguments make sense to you. However, you are using the subject as proof of itself. To say that Christianity is the true religion because it offer's Christ's forgiveness engages in a logical fallacy. It uses the ideas believed in as validation for the inital belief: like saying that I can believe in a secret parallel universe, because that is the only place to escape the horrors of the modern world. Just because it is a nice thing to think about, it isn't necessarily true. Your point about all religions save Christianity being law based is untrue, I am afraid. Buddhism offers no such thing as law, only the concept of suggestions to make all life better. It does not threaten its adherents with hell for disobedience, simply unhappiness as the direct result of their actions. There is no concept of "doing wrong", only doing things that hurt yourself and others. I apologize for having to attack bits of your reply, but it was still an eloquent post, and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you very much.

This is what I don't get. Evidence is strongly in favor of showing that humans millenia ago believed in the spiritual realm and some form of deity or deities - basically, evidence of some religious belief or another. Religion played a key role in human lives and civilizations from primitive societies, through ancient societies, and even through modern societies. The first time I know of that the existence of any diety(ies) has been challenged was with the Greek et al philosophers; but even with them over time there was a reversion to belief in a supreme being or power or essence. So, basically, the non-belief in "God" is a challenge to prevailing human thought. The burden of proof is on the challenger. It's always been that way. Why should this be any different? Firstly, a simple majority does not even begin to denote validity or truth. If that were true, then UFO's would be a fact, and water would be Banned. Just because a concept is ancient and popular, it does not mean it is true. Secondly, the burden of proof is never supposed to be placed on the challenger, because that would allow all manner of logical fallacies.

All right! This is exactly the kind of discourse I was hoping for. Thank you all for giving me such intelligent comments. I now see where you can, with philosophical backing, trust in the existence of a god. However, I am still curious- what makes the Christian definition of god more reliable than the definition presented by other popular religions? Christ's message is a good reason, however, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism (to name a few) all also preach similar messages to further the happiness and ethical development of theire adherents. Once you embrace the concept of religion, why chose Christianity?

If you did prove it via inductive or deductive logic, I would have no choice to believe you. However, if what you say is true, why believe in one specific religion? Why Christianity, and not Shinto, Jainism, Hindu, Buddhism, or any other of the worlds many religions. If you are unable and forbidden from proving god's existence, and this decree comes from the scripture supposedly inspired by this unprovable god, why believe that specific scripture? There are many others to choose from. How can someone accept those things and still believe in any single religioun as being the true relgion?

I have come to neither attack nor defend god. I come only to evoke an credible discussion about the nature of theistic religion. Too often in society do we see the segregation and animosity between athiests, agnostics, and theists. I wish to alleviate some of the ill will both sides have for each other. I am hoping to develop a fair understanding of both the religous (whom the secularists call foolish kooks) and the secular (whom the religous call godless intolerants). I wish to find out what is it that gives people their fervent faith, as I envy their conviction and trust. I know it can't be scripture alone, and in fact, scripture is a very poor argument I am afraid for trying to prove the nature of god, as it is written by man (and I know that some believe it to be divinely inspired revelation, but this attribute of scripture is, once again, given to it by man). As well, there are inumerable different "holy works" that all claim to be the one, true inspired work of god. So, unless reasonable proof is presented to prove that scripture is indeed divinely inspired (which would, via proxy, prove the existence of a deity), scripture cannot, and will never convince a student of reason of anything, let alone the existence of a omnipotent god. P.S. Regarding your weariness at attacks on Jesus In scientific and philosophic process, a theory is strengthened by attack on it. I believe that the more open and free discussion we have regarding the nature of the universe and its potential creator, the more likely we are to come to a conclusion that applies to all mankind. After all, 6 billion minds are better than 1.

All right, As I am sure you all know, apologists all continue the tradition of the original Doctors of the Church. So, continue this tradition, and convince and prove (I know this is by the very nature of the divine impossible, but give me at least a little bit ala Suma Theologica) to me that god can exist. Show me that there is more of a reason for god to exist than say... a teapot orbiting Mars. I am interested to see if there are decent arguments out there that appeal to reason. So, fire away!