What do you object to regarding Christianity and Jesus?

[Smalcald]

Hi Runners' High,

In answering your question I would simply say that there is not a contradiction needed between science and Chrsitianity as they are answering different questions. But I think you agree with that?

[ayin jade]

It is a mockery of the Lord.

[ayin jade]

Bobby Henderson founded the "religion" for his website primarily as a satirical attack on the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

sat

[Openly Curious]

Even science has to have a point of "ORIGIN"

OC

[Copper Scroll]

If both religion and science obtain knowledge through the senses, then how is religion better at finding truth than science?

OR:

If Christians obtain their knowledge of God from something beyond the senses, how is this better evidence than the senses? For instance, many Christians believe in God because they say they can feel his presence in their "heart" or "soul." But how does the soul constitute good evidence for God when the soul itself can't be proved?

Asking me to prove the existence of my soul is like asking me to prove my own existence. My soul is my essence. When I say "I", I am referring to my soul. When I say, "I can feel it in my soul", I mean that I have acquired truth directly in the core of my being and consciousness and it resonates with the totality of my inner and outer experience.

I don't see what the argument is, really. Are you saying that "science" is the only valid way of acquiring truth? That can't be, because you admitted that science tells us nothing of what consciousness is. If it can't tell us that, why would you think that it should tell us anything about the soul or about God?

I think science is the best way of acquiring truth. It is limited, but it is the best thing we have. And the fact that science is limited does not mean religion is any better.

I agree that science is limited. If you accept this, why can't you accept the fact that it can't prove (or it has been entirely ineffective at proving) anything about God? Science can't tell us who we are, so why should it tell us who God is?

That is what religion has over science.

[Copper Scroll]

Asking me to prove the existence of my soul is like asking me to prove my own existence. My soul is my essence. When I say "I", I am referring to my soul. When I say, "I can feel it in my soul", I mean that I have acquired truth directly in the core of my being and consciousness and it resonates with the totality of my inner and outer experience.

So is your soul your consciousness?

No. I think it's more than that. See above.

Also, the fact science is limited does not mean religion is any more informed. I honestly believe religion is just an invention to quench our thirst for knowledge and meaning. There are some answers we will never get, so priests made them up. And, like any good story, they've become increasingly elaborate since their inception. Religion is the industry of answering hitherto unanswered and unanswerable questions. We want to know the answers. We want this very badly. So badly, in fact, that we will put an irrational trust in authority to get them. People have been doing this since the dawn of thought. It has helped us sleep at night, but it hasn't brought us any closer to the Truth.

Do you have any evidence that a priest made God up?

[TheProcess]

I think you believe in free will because religion needs free will in order for God to morally exact judgment. If we were not really in "control" of our actions, if we were instead just the mechanical results of the initial conditions of the universe, then God could not punish us. You're looking for an explanation of free will because your religion needs free will, not because free will actually exists.

You would think so wouldn't you? But lots of Christians wouldn't agree with you. They will deny free will, or libertarian free will at least.

[TheProcess]

"Judging what God does isn't even an issue." I (like the rest of us) lack the faculties to do it, and I have no interest in it.

I still don't see how the idea that God is morally perfect by definition is inconsistent with the idea that God is morally perfect....

Having or not having the "faculties" is irrelevant. What you are saying is inconsistent with your own position as I explained in the previous post. It doesn't matter how much knowledge we have. How much knowledge we have can't even be an issue if God is morally perfect by definition.

[TheProcess]

Yes, you have "told" me that my position "destroys the moral goodness of God", but you have not demonstrated how.

I have explained how a number of times.

As far as I can tell, "empty tautology" is still true. "A chair is a chair" is like an empty tautology, but it is still true.

Yes, something is true, God is morally perfect in a way. But all it is saying is something like "God wills in keeping with what he wills". Can you not see why this is "empty"?

Using the word "destroy" is ridiculously hyperbolic and a completely irrational reading of my position. (I'm not telling you anything new.)

I don't think you understand the objection.

Why do you keep referring me to wikipedia?

To show that this is a recognized problem.

I hope you don't expect me to read that whole article. At this point, I have not been shown any reason why I should. The passages you quote have been answered, and you consistently fail to address that answer: Saying that God is good is not equivalent to saying God is morally good. If you go to church and listen to the testimony of a believer, you will hear several reasons why that believer holds that God is good that have little to do with "morality." Address this, TheProcess.

If you think God is "good" in some different way... well OK, but it doesn't answer the objection.

[Floatingaxe]

God isn't just good.... He is GOODNESS! The embodiment of all that is good. Only he alone knows what goodness is, as He declared it first! He is the standard.