What does it take to believe in jesus christ?

[jasJis]

Mel,
I smile warmly when I read your posts. I can say I have agreed with you at some point, and partially agree with you now.
I don't 'need' and explanation of existence created with intent by a superior being to calm or soothe my psyche. To me, (an avid science buff), the most reasonable, most likely, and most logical hypothesis is that the order of the universe is evidence of creation with intent. I'm with Galileo on that.

I also agree with you that no single 'religion' fully explains 'god'. There are nuances and qualifications that explain my understanding of Catholicism being the 'fullness of Truth', but Catholicism is still limited because Humanity is limited in it's comprehension.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Apr 14 2005, 05:56 PM'] I'll give you my point of view. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or Jesus, never have and, honestly, can't imagine ever starting to. It's simply not possible anymore. I gave it a thought, pondered on it and can not understand what possible evidence or experience could convince me enough of such things. "Evidence for God" is contradictory. There can be no such thing.

So you have to have faith. But having faith is the same as walking of a cliff. Most believers just die before they hit the bottom.

What would it take then? More than is possible. [/quote]
Evidence of "[i]God[/i]" is reasonable and logical. Especially considering what we know in science.

First off, the Universe was created because it has a starting point. Simply, the Big Bang is evident in the movement of the stars, galaxies, etc.
-What caused the Bang? -What cause energy to coalesce to matter an put it in motion? What created the original energy since we know that energy creates matter and the destruction of matter results in energy? -If the Bang was a random accident (not theoretically possible), how does it explain the lack of chaos and existent order that is evident. Even Chaos theories statistically don't support the evident order. Hence, the Intentional Design theories.
Granted, these are theories and not emperical proof of God, but the most likely and rational proof is the existence of a Creator with Intent. Honest and broad analysis of Evolution points to that as well.

Evidence exists that there is an Entity that can create and direct Matter and Energy by force of will. The rest of our concept of God is more philosophical and logical thought, but you are quite wrong to claim that evidence of God is contradictory. That statement is just as superstitous as a claim that Genisis is literally all true as scientific fact.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]I don't know what that is.
[/quote]

It is an encylical that is titled faith and reason. I would suggest looking it up and giving it a read.

[quote]You of course assume a creation.
[/quote]

Not really. I am saying that we look to the universe and observe it and experience it. Then we ask what kind of thing would be able to give this effect? A big bang? Hmm.....Not really. Energy floating around and what not does not appear to give the effect of sentient beings. Nemo dat quod non habet (law of conservation: nothing gives what it does not have). We can use the arguement from design, the cosmological arguement as laid down in the five ways, etc... I am sure you are familiar with those if you have truly tried to give this a thought. It does not presume that God created the universe because it does not start with the presupposition of God. It starts with our experience of the world and then moves backward by applying the law of conservation to the theory of infinite regresses.


[quote]I can accept a logical proof.
[/quote]

Then you are familiar with the five ways and the arguement from design and what not? Why is that you do not accept them?


[quote]He has no reason to think so and yet he does. That's faith. [/quote]
No, that is ignorance. Do not oversimplify or confuse faith with ignorance. I am sure that you will notice quite a few people here have quite a a grasp on what they believe and why and are able to justify such claims.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 14 2005, 02:35 PM'] To not believe in theism encompasses the many gods of those theistic beleifs (allah, yahweh, vishnu). I do not assert that a creator is logically impossible nor have heard arguments convincing enough. Creator is used in the most ambiguous sense and does not necessarily imply sumpremecy. [/quote]
Okay, but that doesn't really address my question. A "weak atheist" doesn't believe in deity (will this serve in place of 'creator'? that term doesn't mean anything to me and I think deity serves our purposes better here), but doesn't deny the existence of deity. It's basically saying 'I don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there' right? And how is this different from agnosticism a la 'don't know, can't know, etc.'?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 15 2005, 09:08 AM'] Evidence of "[i]God[/i]" is reasonable and logical. Especially considering what we know in science. [/quote]
Quick grammar rant: unless you are trying to call into question the meaning of the word 'god', you'd do well to leave the quotation marks off.

There is no evidence for a supreme being.

[quote]First off, the Universe was created because it has a starting point. [/quote]

No, the universe [i]exists[/i] because it had a "starting point". "Create" implies both creator and meaningful creation. Neither is proved simply by existence.

[quote]Simply, the Big Bang is evident in the movement of the stars, galaxies, etc.
-What caused the Bang?  -What cause energy to coalesce to matter an put it in motion?  What created the original energy since we know that energy creates matter and the destruction of matter results in energy?  -If the Bang was a random accident (not theoretically possible), how does it explain the lack of chaos and existent order that is evident.  Even Chaos theories statistically don't support the evident order.  Hence, the Intentional Design theories.
Granted, these are theories and not emperical proof of God, but the most likely and rational proof is the existence of a Creator with Intent.  Honest and broad analysis of Evolution points to that as well.[/quote]

On this we disagree. *shrug* It happens.

[quote]Evidence exists that there is an Entity that can create and direct Matter and Energy by force of will.  The rest of our concept of God is more philosophical and logical thought, but you are quite wrong to claim that evidence of God is contradictory.  That statement is just as superstitous as a claim that Genisis is literally all true as scientific fact.[/quote]

No, evidence [i]suggests[/i] (in your opinion) that there is a higher order to the universe. You [i]interpret[/i] this [i]suggestion[/i] to mean that a supreme being exists. This does nothing to alleviate the inherent contradiction in the term 'evidence for/of god' for me.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 15 2005, 11:50 AM'] Okay, but that doesn't really address my question. A "weak atheist" doesn't believe in deity (will this serve in place of 'creator'? that term doesn't mean anything to me and I think deity serves our purposes better here), but doesn't deny the existence of deity. It's basically saying 'I don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there' right? And how is this different from agnosticism a la 'don't know, can't know, etc.'? [/quote]
Atheism is a position on belief, Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. A weak atheist might disbelieve gods, but still hold that knowledge of gods is unknowable, or unknowable at this time. A strong atheist makes a positive claim against all gods, even gods they haven't heard of. Here is a blurb from infidels.org:

[i]Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.[/i]

[Paphnutius]

Just a thought, you know Mel might know what he is talking about. So why do people keep trying to get him to committ to a statement he is not making? I am sure that we would be frustrated with others continously telling you that you dont really believe X but you mean Y.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnutius'] I would suggest looking it up and giving it a read.[/quote]

Right, I found it and will read it. It looks quite long, though, so it might take some time.

[quote]Energy floating around and what not does not appear to give the effect of sentient beings. [/quote]

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?

[quote]Then you are familiar with the five ways and the arguement from design and what not? Why is that you do not accept them?[/quote]

I've seen them mentioned somewhere before. I read them through with thought now, but I'm not impressed. Here are my thoughts on them:

1. way:
Ridiculous. Clearly comes from not understanding simple physics. First of all, motion doesn't have to come from another. As all matter is energy so is all heat and movement. The simple fact that all matter must have temperature above zero means every particle must have inherent movement of it's own causing. And second, the implied domino effect suggesting First Mover doesn't even come into play. All is needed is to matter exist and interactions between them will take it from there.

2. way:
The problem of infinite causes. For which God is offered as the answer (first cause). However, God doesn't solve the problem. God is just a name given for something which breaks the infinite chain of causes. Yet, it has not been established whether this God is even possible. Conclusion that there has to be God is not a conclusion that God is possible and therefore is not a proof for God's existance. If God is not possible, then logically another solution for the problem must exist. If God is possible, then the original conclusion of necessity of God might be wrong (because of incorrect assumptions). I am not convinced God is required to solve the problem. The universe could have came from nothing.

3. way:
"Nothing can come from nothing." Why not? There certainly are exceptions. Anyways, birth of something (from nothing or elseway) does not necessarily require intelligence or intent.


4. way:
Oh please, this is just silly. Just because there [b]can be[/b] greater things, there has to [b]be[/b] a infinitely great thing? [i]Infinitely![/i] First of all, greatest does not mean the same as infinitely great. And second, it has not been even established that infinity is possible. And third, "can be" doesn't mean it actually is.

5. way:
Argument from design? Really? That's a pretty crappy argument. Complexity does not necessitate a designer. And the main part of fifth: "whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end". And why not? Planets, stars, galaxies, blackholes, etc form simply by gravitational attraction. Also, is the fifth claiming that humans (or other animals) are not natural?


No way:
The Five ways is not proof of anything.


[quote]No, that is ignorance. Do not oversimplify or confuse faith with ignorance.[/quote]

Well, it's my point of view of faith. Is it not the result of faith? Merriam-Webster defines faith as "firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof". That certainly holds for my cliff analogy.

[quote]I am sure that you will notice quite a few people here have quite a a grasp on what they believe and why and are able to justify such claims.[/quote]

I don't hear any justifying being done.

[Antonius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Apr 15 2005, 05:02 PM']I don't hear any justifying being done.[/quote]
I'm not an atheist not because I believe in God, but because atheism does not solve any questions I have. The deepest desires of my being, indeed what drives me, are the questions, "What is the meaning of life?", "What do these things have in common?", "What do I have to do with Napoleon, my computer, and my professor?", "Why?"

I desire very deeply that these questions have answers. If they do not have answers, then....

Then why am I alive? Why do I have these questions? Why did I evolve a need for something that cannot be quenched? Surely it is folly.... Nature has played dice and lost. How terrible existence is, then... How absurd.

Jesus of Nazareth said that He was God, the Christ. He was an event that happened 2000 years ago. He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." So then, here is a man who says these things.... Can he be right? So far, I think He is, and others have confirmed that I am not crazy.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]Right, I found it and will read it. It looks quite long, though, so it might take some time.
[/quote]

Take your time and enjoy it.

[quote]Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?[/quote]

Do you know how the law of conservation works?

[quote]1. way:
Ridiculous. Clearly comes from not understanding simple physics. First of all, motion doesn't have to come from another. As all matter is energy so is all heat and movement. The simple fact that all matter must have temperature above zero means every particle must have inherent movement of it's own causing. And second, the implied domino effect suggesting First Mover doesn't even come into play. All is needed is to matter exist and interactions between them will take it from there. [/quote]

Lets stick to discussing this one first. So you admit that there had to be an interaction? What caused (note I did not say create) this interaction? I think I need to know your thoughts on the law of conservation before we move on.

[quote]The universe could have came from nothing.
[/quote]

Something come from nothing?! My that would be nice *tries to will a cheeseburger* Darn it didnt work...

Lets line up some of your thoughts...
[quote]"Nothing can come from nothing." Why not? There certainly are exceptions.

And second, it has not been even established that infinity is possible

All is needed is to matter exist and interactions between them will take it from there.
[/quote]

So you say that something may come from nothin. I ask for your proof that something comes from absoultly nothing. Being come from non-being. If you hold that something may come from nothing then in essence you have proven infinity, which you apparently deny by saying it has not been established as possible. But if all there needs to be matter and that interaction, doesnt that require an infinity since you seem to hold to infinite regress theory.

Either one, you deny that everything must have a cause, and therefore things may spontaneously appear (I do recall that being though way back in the day, but since disproven). Which then, how would science be able to operate? Can something really come from nothing? Reality from non-reality? If you could do that I am sure you would be a millionaire.

Or two, you admit that there can be an infinite regress of causes, which still breaks the law of conservation. For if you say that everything must have a cause and come from something then there always has to be something that preceeded that. This will take us on forever and ever backwards. Mind you, what was that initial reaction?

Just some random observations about the incoherence in your thoughts.

Ours: Everything must have a cause. This is grounded in experience. We do not see movement unless acted upon by something else, we do not see change unless that potentiality is acutalized by something already containing that acutlaity within it. We do not see being coming from non-being.

But there cannot be an infinite regress back, for where did that actuality come from?

Everything has a cause->infinite regress not possible->Must of been a first causer ->the only such thing that could of been a first causer/unmoved mover/designer/etc...can be God

[quote]There certainly are exceptions.[/quote]

Proof?

[quote]Well, it's my point of view of faith. Is it not the result of faith? Merriam-Webster defines faith as "firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof". That certainly holds for my cliff analogy.
[/quote]

Except that Merriam Webster in its infinite knowledge did not say that this leads to one's demise, but you think so.

Just some random thoughts.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnutius']Do you know how the law of conservation works?[/quote]

There are many laws of conservation. To which are you referring to? Energy?

[quote]So you admit that there had to be an interaction?[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean. Interaction of matter is inevitable. And the only way that stars, planets and eventually humans could have formed.

[quote]What caused (note I did not say create) this interaction?[/quote]

Matter interacts with matter (and non-matter). What is there to cause?

[quote]So you say that something may come from nothin. I ask for your proof that something comes from absoultly nothing.[/quote]

Well, there are virtual particles. They spontaneously appear from nothingness. It would seem that for a small amount of time it doesn't matter that they come from nothing as long as they exist only for a short time. The total amount of energy in the universe remains constant except for some small quantumlevel fluctuations. The birth of our universe could have happened in a similar fashion.


[quote]If you hold that something may come from nothing then in essence you have proven infinity, which you apparently deny by saying it has not been established as possible.[/quote]

I don't see how I could have proven infinity. Yes, I deny infinity. And that's why I deny God.


[quote]Everything must have a cause.[/quote]

Then how can there be something that doesn't have a cause? You say God is required to stop the infinite chain of causes and yet you can't explain whether the concept of God is possible.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]There are many laws of conservation. To which are you referring to? Energy?[/quote]

Since we were talking about philosophy, I was refering to the philosophical law of conservation: Nothing gives what it does not have, from nothingness nothing comes, nemo dat quod non habet, or any variation of that.

[quote]I'm not sure what you mean. Interaction of matter is inevitable. And the only way that stars, planets and eventually humans could have formed.
[/quote]

If there was interaction there had to be an initial interaction.

[quote]Matter interacts with matter (and non-matter). What is there to cause?
[/quote]

The interaction. Matter A impacts Matter B which interacts with Matter C.

[quote]Well, there are virtual particles. They spontaneously appear from nothingness. It would seem that for a small amount of time it doesn't matter that they come from nothing as long as they exist only for a short time. The total amount of energy in the universe remains constant except for some small quantumlevel fluctuations. The birth of our universe could have happened in a similar fashion.[/quote]

I would ask for a link to that. Also to that I would simply say that they come from something, just something that we cannot measure or quantify yet. We are still limited in our knowledge of the universe.

[quote]Yes, I deny infinity. And that's why I deny God.
[/quote]

Then you must also offer an alternative solution. We say that God is infinite because He is pure actuality. Also pay attention to the way that the arguement ends. The only thing that can satisfy this problem of infinite regress is God. The arguement hinges on the fact that God is the only explination for the universe. Until you present another suffecient alternative then...You already said that you deny infinity so you cannot say that the universe has infinitly existed. You must now present an alternative that is not infinite by your own definition and shows the universe coming from something.

What do you think was before matter and existence then if you deny infinity and deny a God? I still do not accept your proposal of "virtual particles." They [i]appear [/i] to come from nothing, but that may simply be because we do not have the tools to measure what they come from. Until we can come to an agreeance on the law of conservation we really cannot move to much further.

[Paphnutius]

Ok I did some quick research into these virtual particles. Here is a link that says the law of conservation of energy appears to be violated for a very small amount of time, but that is because the more we study that part of the photon the more uncertain we become of the other part. It is a law based on uncertaintity catch that?Also in the outcome it is indeed conserved:http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

Here is another article that says they cannot be observed:http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/virtual.html

Other articles I have read have said that you cannot realy detect them so much as detect the effect that they have had... a non-observable proof? Seems shakey...

Here is is just an approximation of quantam physics and cannot be measure but simply uncertain:http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/3virtual.html

Another site that goes far in-depht about their unobservability and how it does not violate the law of conservation of energy:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Keep in mind I was speaking about the philosophical law of conservation.

So you are basing your arguement on an indirectly unobservable theory that really does not violate the law of conservation?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnitius']philosophical law of conservation.[/quote]

Seems to be similar to the law of conservation of energy.

[quote name='Paphnutius']The interaction. Matter A impacts Matter B which interacts with Matter C.[/quote]

None of that. There's bunch of matter in common space and they will interact with eachother.

[quote]I would ask for a link to that.[/quote]

I don't have any links, since I've read these things from physics books.


[quote]You must now present an alternative[/quote]

I have. In fact two: (1) universe was born from nothingness and (2) first cause was non-personal, non-intelligent and had no intent.

So now we have atleast three theories for the birth of universe. You can't say it's God, if the other theories are still a possibility.

[quote] What do you think was before matter and existence then if you deny infinity and deny a God?[/quote]

Before existance? Nothing. How could you answer to that in another way? If there is no existance then nothing exists.

[quote] It is a law based on uncertaintity catch that?[/quote]

Yes, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle results in the total constant energy of the universe being in a state of uncertainty in quantumlevels. Virtual particles are a concrete manifestation of this. And I'm saying that the birth of the universe could be result of a similar uncertainty.

[quote]Here is another article that says they cannot be observed[/quote]

Try Casimir effect. They can be (atleast) indirectly observed.

[quote]it does not violate the law of conservation of energy[/quote]

That's true, because they annihilate themselfs in such a short time. But still, they do exist for a while. Again, same could be true for the universe.

I'll go take a look at your links now...

[infinitelord1]

earlier in this thread.....some of you mentioned being zapped by god.......well, im starting to doubt that god will ever zap me.