Christianity...

[Pyre]

But that's it, that's all they are: theories. Just like what I had to say is some bogus theory that came to me for some unknown reason one day. I wish I could be around long enough to witness the theories that we hold now come to light as facts or as fiction.

I have never looked into Thermodynamics, therefore I am unfamiliar with it. I simply don't believe in chaos, I have to believe in structure.

Then again, maybe I truly believe in neither? I have so many different theories and beliefs that they often contradict each other. I am extremely complex about such things.

[om3gag0th666]

Originally Posted by Pyre

But that's it, that's all they are: theories. Just like what I had to say is some bogus theory that came to me for some unknown reason one day. I wish I could be around long enough to witness the theories that we hold now come to light as facts or as fiction.

I have never looked into Thermodynamics, therefore I am unfamiliar with it. I simply don't believe in chaos, I have to believe in structure.

Then again, maybe I truly believe in neither? I have so many different theories and beliefs that they often contradict each other. I am extremely complex about such things.

Thermodynamics states that all order returns TO chaos (in closed systems). Your theories lose out to those that have been proven via empiricism. Also don't confuse your version of theory with a scientific theory.

A scientic theory is basically unchangable fact, like the theory of gravity, or electricity, etc.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Look at it this way.
My thesis is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything increases in entropy, and never decreases.
A crude example of this is that glasses break every day, but shards never merge into a panel of glass.
By entropy, the random chance of events to happen increases by the minute, eventually ripping apart self-ordering tendencies.

[om3gag0th666]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Look at it this way.
My thesis is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything increases in entropy, and never decreases.
A crude example of this is that glasses break every day, but shards never merge into a panel of glass.
By entropy, the random chance of events to happen increases by the minute, eventually ripping apart self-ordering tendencies.

Yeah, that works in a closed-system, but that's not proven in an open-system like the Earth. Entropy isn't shards of glass, entropy is decay. They also use entropy to thwart evolution, but it fails since it's speculative how it functions in an open-system like the Earth.

[Pyre]

Order may return to chaos, but chaos returns to order. That is part of a system. It's a cycle. No one ever said a system had to be orderly, it just has to work.

And according to what has already been said, a scientific theory only applies to a certain extent of things. Therefore, scientific theory becomes false the further it is stretched out.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Like Newton's theory of gravity.

[Pyre]

Or Jesus' theory of. . .
Oh wait, that's not a theory.

Sorry, I am becoming more and more delusional :-/

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by om3gag0th666

Yeah, that works in a closed-system, but that's not proven in an open-system like the Earth. Entropy isn't shards of glass, entropy is decay. They also use entropy to thwart evolution, but it fails since it's speculative how it functions in an open-system like the Earth.

"Order leads to chaos. However, given sufficient time, chaos may lead to order."

A perfect example is the formation of star systems. They start out as disorderly clouds of gas. Over time, those clouds form into stars and planets. These solar systems are (almost) a perfect example of reverse entropy. The star becomes stable, capable of burning for billions of years. The planets settle into orbits that will last as long as the star burns.

Entropy, and it's antithesis (I'm unsure what the term would be) co-exist. One leads to the other, which leads back to the first. And so on, and so forth.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Pyre

Order may return to chaos, but chaos returns to order. That is part of a system. It's a cycle. No one ever said a system had to be orderly, it just has to work.

And according to what has already been said, a scientific theory only applies to a certain extent of things. Therefore, scientific theory becomes false the further it is stretched out.

It is a matter of perspective, similar to Einstein's idea of Relativity:

For example, if one looks at a nail rusting, you could say:
"Entropy is causing the nail to decay, the iron is rusting"
but if you look at it from the atomic scale, the iron atoms are combining with oxygen atoms, building a more complicated molecule! Becoming more complicated! Man made processes took the natural form of iron ore (iron combined with other elements) and simplified it. Iron, during the oxidizing process becomes more complex!

The same with the death of an organism. The organisim may become more simple (breaks down, entropy), but the lower level processes are actually quite orderly.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

To Godslayer Jillian - This is my favorite Bible verse. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who worketh in you."

I first came across it in a book called Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. Actually, it is the only Bible verse contained within it, I do believe.
This book stood out from the usual deluge of pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble presented in defense/ support of Christianity because it is the only explanation/ description of Christianity I've found that actually describes my faith. Yes, I use the word faith even though it "enrages" you so.

I am not the most logical person here, not by a long shot. I am not the most intelligent. I doubt i am the most faithful. I am definitely not the most knowledgeable. You demonstrate more knowledge of Biblical history and debate as a Satanist than many who present Christian faith as a profession. But that's just the thing.

You cannot define something like faith with logic. It is illogical. You cannot accurately stratify it into catagories, or dissect it scientifically to find the meat of meaning or truth within. It is different for each person, and thus the "truth" of it, or the "logical" breakdown of it is different for each person. that's what is meant by a "personal relationship", much as i detest that over used tripe of a phrase. That being said, no concrete arguement can be presented for or against it. Not one that will hold water on every single account. Which, it seems to me, is what you are looking for.

My point is, that a religion without faith is pointless. It becomes something else, it becomes a political tool, or an addiction, or a social protocol.

Now, if you try to define/ logically break down Christianity as any of those, that is easy. All it takes is bringing up myriad points of knowledge that contradict the established set of assertions presented by whichever branch of Christianity you choose to target. There is not one thing you or I can present that could not be shot down, or conversely, supported, in a logical fashion. I, as a Christian, admit that.

Genuine Christianity is not logical, as faith is not logical. I can't give you an arguement against faith. I cannot give you and arguement for it either.

Any discussion of genuine religion, or faith, cannot be discussed logically. You, and several others here, are trying to debate something with logic and justified arguement that doesn't lend it self to being carved with those tools. Anything that can be isn't faith, and thus, isn't Christianity. History is not, knowledge is not, in fact, anything that can be genuinely, logically defined, is not. These may be things that a group of people attach to it, but it isn't the real thing.

All the traditions, the churches, the writings, the ceremonies, rituals, laws, and the rest of it have almost nothing to do with the real thing. They are, at best, very poor immitations, or feeble attempts at translation, full of human fallacy, and thus, easily "disproved". That is what happens when people try to fit what they "know" into what actually is.

And the "what is" or the truth, is too large, too complex, for us to genuinely comprehend. No human can know all, and how can anyone make a logical arguement, or even a hypothesis that could hold water, without all the facts pertaining to said subject?

Basically, you are asking for an arguement that cannot be won or lost, other than on a case by case, individual basis. Even then, due to human fallibility, you (or I) could be wrong. The answer, if you want one, is in faith. Your faith is in that nothing like God exists, your faith is in fallible logic, a logic that is incomplete. My faith is based on love, what I percieve through my own experience, and what I believe is answered prayer. In your believe system those things might be explained through cause and effect, through chaos or chance, or in cynical analysis of whatever is presented to you.


I guess what I am trying to say is that Christianity isn't Christianity without faith, at least to those who profess belief, and to try to define, discuss, prove or disprove it without taking faith into account is like trying to do algebra without an understanding of what a number is. If you don't have a meaning, or an idea, for a number, then you can't even count, or do basic addition, never mind integral and differential calculus.

Any discussion here is completely moot without taking faith into consideration. In a discussion of Christianity, or any faith/religion/belief system, it has to be taken into account. Everything else pertaining to the discussion is hollow, lifeless, without it.

[Nocturalis]

Of course it could be true. Anything could be true. Anything is possible. The problem is that some things are simply impossible to test for likelihood. Such as the existance of a supernatural being or souls.

Faith is personal. Faith would not be faith without what I said above. There is a limit to what we can know. Faith assumes things beyond that limit.

I do not assume anything. I have faith in the scientific method and reason. But not unlimited faith. Furthermore, if something isn't neccesary in an explanation, it doesn't exist to me. I'm far too skeptical to assume something so huge as a belief system when so many better and more likely explanation could still exist.

If you found you philosophy on logic, any statements about god are void and meaningless. To some people they have value. It doesn't anger me or annoy me. To them reality has a different sort of meaning. And nobody can know which is right or wrong for sure. That's why I'm an ignocist, I don't assume anything, but try to find my way by discovering what can and cannot be known. I don't need further value. I can be quite nihilistic, even.

Remember there are endless belief systems, all equally impossible to prove. I'm not an agnostic, I'm not saying they all could be true, even if they are, because the core idea is that you can't know it anyway. Bisides, you can't know whether there is a difference between "what is" and "what we experience" because what we experience is all we can know, so to me, all that is, because it is all that seems to be. That, however, is allways in motion.

[HumanePain]

Bravo EmeraldLoneWolf! Well said. I have faith in Jesus, it works for me, and that is all I need. I save logic for physics and optics.

[Shadow girl]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The goal of this thread is for you people to finally accept Jesus Christ in your hearts and be saved because he loves you.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

This is a true statement as shown in The Bible Jesus is a friend to all and loves everybody

[emeraldlonewoulf]

thankyou, humanepain

umm, shadow girl, true as that may be for us, it isn't for some, and i think you missed his sacrastic note. have you even read this thread?
more specifically, his entire first post? you are out of your league if you think that statement will have any genuine bearing here. kudos for trying though.

to others, just to clarify,

a) yes i am Christian

b) i do not expect everyone else to be

c) i expect (as in that should be the basis for, not actually thinking most people do) anyone who professes a given belief system to question it, to build something real and meaningful in their faith, and not to just "accept Jesus into their heart" before a congregation, or pay their $300 dollar membership somewhere for a little red card, or practice an age old set of celtic rites because they think it is cool, or call upon names of spirits for show.

d) i have great deal of respect for anyone who cares enough about such spiritual matters to delve as deeply as several here have done, or to discuss the world around them and the evidence this provides, even if we do not agree,

e) and lastly, was trying to point out why the logic on both sides is flawed, making much of the debate pointless and futile, because of the genuine nature of the faith discussed versus what is commonly percieved, because true Christianity is faith, not religion, and there are specific differences between these terms.

basically, it comes down to this : service of others should come before and above service of self. as human beings it is our nature to be selfish. as spiritual beings we can foster the strength necessary to protect those weaker, help up the fallen, and when we have troubles of our own, learn from them, fall back upon on the love of a benevolent, awesome, awful creator, and overcome through his strength. we learn to help others, and without the intent to help ourselves, do anyway. If we start out with only the intent to help ourselves, and hold that intent higher than the needs of others, our plans will inevitably fail. perhaps not immediately, but in the end, when matters have taken their course, they fail. that doesn't mean you shouldn't work for the betterment of your own situation, it means you shouldn't hold that higher than all other concerns.

The only way to really teach someone about what Christianity means is to show them love. to show them mercy, more than mercy. Love your enemy. There is a lot of meaning contained in that statement. it is the basic tenet of the faith. Do unto to other as you would have them do unto you. that means when someone hurts you, to love anyway. not just show it, do it. that task is too great for anyone to handle alone. we have to be dependent on a higher power to make it work. but it only through doing this that we can see a greater part of the picture, or grow spiritually enough to realize what we see.

ok, between these last two posts, i think i've pretty much spoken my piece, any comments?

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Originally Posted by Nocturalis

Bisides, you can't know whether there is a difference between "what is" and "what we experience" because what we experience is all we can know, so to me, all that is, because it is all that seems to be. That, however, is allways in motion.

ok, i know i said i was done, but then i re-read this. of course there is a difference between "what is" and "what we experience" because what we experience is only part of "what is", not the complete truth. many false things can be "proven" with part of the truth. but no one, not the greatest scholars on earth, can have a perfect picture of the truth, because none of us know all of the truth from which to form an infallible conclusion. that is why truth must be taken on faith, regardless of what evidence is presented, becaue no matter how much evidence we have, it isn't the whole story.

However, i like the fact you think things through, and are willing to share them. it makes for interesting posts.

[Splintered]

I owe you an apology for my absence Knightmare. Sadly, it was something that had to be taken care of.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

I have found evidence in other archeological studies that show some of the Old Testament to be preposterous. Yet, there are numerous prophecies (like the oppression by the Chaldeans or the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem) historical figures (Belteshazzar, whom I would like to add, archeology initially thought to be fictional until evidence was later found) and places (Jericho, etc.) in the Bible that correspond to archeological findings. Also, Biblical events such as the Flood have been mentioned by other civilizations.

Every flood story can be explained in two ways, and these are two very simple alternatives.

1. It floods often. Most places get flooding at some within a century. Pass over several hundred years of recorded history, and eventually, one day you might find your selected river has flooded.

2. One myth spreads into many. Someone came up with the idea of a flood. Then another person took that, and changed a few facts.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

There is much controversy regarding the Old Testament's authenticity. Yet, the presence of the controversy regarding the Scriptures seem to validate the point that the Scriptures are not seen as totally absurd by the majority of scholars. You cannot debate a concept that has been proven false by empirical evidence, since there would not be a need for the debate. The findings in archeology have a strong tendency to change, so some "facts" could later be proven false and vice versa.

Which makes studying history, useless.
So, we have two options: Work with what we have, or don't work at all.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

However, the NT is the most credible document attested by archeology. All your points in regard to the NT are not based on actualities but potentialities. For example, one of your arguments against the NT was that Josephus SHOULD of written down the insignificant event. It is all based on your expectations.

Which is the essence of creating doubt. It's why we can't claim that the big bang happened affirmatively, because something else might have happened. Yet, we have enough empirical evidence to say that it is the most likely outcome.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, I think that while God gives enough evidence for those who presuppose His existence, He purposely does not give enough evidence for those who do not have the presupposition of a Divine Being. If God gave all the evidence of His existence, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless.

And instead, we all get to go to hell.
My God is an awesome god, he reigns from heaven above, and arbitrarily sends people to hell, because of his lack to provide evidence...

Damn, that didn't rhyme.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, evidence may have existed but may have been destroyed. You mentioned the possibilities of anomalies. Instead of the anomalies working in the favor of your presuppositions, it could also work in the favor of my presupposition of the Bible as being accurate.

Quite true.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, the fact that atheism requires faith is not personal preference. Rather, it is a fact. Presuppositions are instrumental in science and reason also. In fact, the scientific method operates on inductional reasoning. An example is evolution itself. Has it been tested or observed empirically? Where are the missing links? Where is the evidence of the scientific theories we accept? How about the axiom in mathematics?

Evolution has been observed.

And I quote,

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

But that's beyond the point.
Presumptions are present on both side. It is then a matter of opinion to debate.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

All induction begins with deduction. There was a starting point based on faith for every belief. For example, scientists, particularly evolutionists, make a tremendous presupposition of the uniformity of cause and effect in the universe.

Actually, some don't believe in the uniformity of cause and effect (Some theorized that the physical laws that govern our universe were radically different in the big bang.) Also, we've barely seen any evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Thus, rejecting anything that is not empirical evidence destroys science and reason. It undermines science as it is all based on presuppositions (this molecule will act in the same way or an apple will fall because of the law of gravity) Even the claim that metaphysics is not true since it is not empirical refutes itself due to lack of evidence supporting the claim itself.

The presuppositions are based on presuppositions, that are based on presuppositions. Science is based on presuppositions, true. But that's because it works from the ground up. The presuppositions are based on empirical evidence themselves.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, human beings are limited in our knowledge. How do we know that our perceptions are the final source of all truth? Christianity gains its final truth not through our five fallible senses but from the Gospels.

Which is ultimately circular logic.

The absolute (Final) truth comes from the Gospels.
The Gospels come from the word of God, ergo the authenticity.
God, gets it's creation from the Gospels.
Circular logic.

It is a matter of perspective, similar to Einstein's idea of Relativity:

For example, if one looks at a nail rusting, you could say:
"Entropy is causing the nail to decay, the iron is rusting"
but if you look at it from the atomic scale, the iron atoms are combining with oxygen atoms, building a more complicated molecule! Becoming more complicated! Man made processes took the natural form of iron ore (iron combined with other elements) and simplified it. Iron, during the oxidizing process becomes more complex!

The same with the death of an organism. The organisim may become more simple (breaks down, entropy), but the lower level processes are actually quite orderly.

But there's a problem.
You are forgetting the work involved. What was lost while this oxidation process was taking place.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Ah, I missed this thread.
Which reminds me of something I have to share with you.

As you know, I attend a Christian school, and I have to take mandatory Bible classes; specifically Apologetics.
I earned a reputation of being the devil's advocate (pun most certainly intended ) by contradicting and asking the teacher (which is also the school principle) in every chance I got.
Everytime my teacher couldn't answer me a question in which I compared Christianity to other religions he answered, to my classmate's and my amusement: "That's a good question. Let's wait until we're in World Religions (our next semester's Bible class) to talk about that."
Well, today the teacher announced that he won't be teaching the class of World Religions.
I think someone was scared.

And I'm not feeding my ego on an assumption without bases. He has done something of this calibre already in the past:
We had to read two books during the semester, and deliver a sheet of paper with two questions about the chapter we were reading to prove that we were indeed paying attention to the book.
He always answered the questions back with a worth reading answer.
But once, when we got into a chapter of Jesus' fullfiling the prophecies, both me and a friend of mine asked the same question in the paper:
"One of the prophecies said that none of Jesus' bones were to be broken. But wouldn't the nails in the feet broke the tarsals?"
Needless to say, he never gave the class the answered sheets from there on.

[Pyre]

I have known of others to have the same problems, Jillian. It comes with the territory Though, if the teacher truly had the answers, then he would have answered you.
Obviously, he didn't. Just as many others won't that you speak to.
If someone is going to teach at a Christian school, then I believe that person needs to have extensive knowledge about their religion, and they should prepare themselves for such issues and know how to handle them. Avoiding the topic is a sign that he had no idea how to respond, obviously.

[Splintered]

Beautiful:
http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?p=44

[Pyre]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Beautiful:
http://www.atheistnation.net/video.php?p=44

Haha, Jillian showed that to me. It had some good things and some things that could easily be argued. Regardless, I wish British comedians would narrate life for me. They're so funny.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

I too missed this thread Jillian, I hope that someday you can be involved in a similar class with a better teacher/professor. Someone who is willing to research answers and take on the challenges a bright student brings, rather than hide in ambiguous answers and a "we'll get to that later." I have always hated that. I have more respect for an educator who can honestly answer "I don't know, but i will try to find out" than one who tries to cover their ignorance or forgetfulness by implying the material is too advanced for the student/class.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

Jillian, I hope that someday you can be involved in a similar class with a better teacher/professor.

Oh, well. I have to give my proffessor credit in this. I doubt there would be many proffessors that know as much as he does about his subject. Only if I were taught by J.P. Moreland or Craig Lane would I get all the answers I need; and even so, I have found many flaws in what Craig has to say.

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

I have more respect for an educator who can honestly answer "I don't know, but i will try to find out" than one who tries to cover their ignorance or forgetfulness by implying the material is too advanced for the student/class.

Actually there is one teacher that does have this mentality. Our class is taught by three teachers.
The problem is that while he isn't a prideful as the main teacher, he also isn't as researched. I very much prefer the second proffesor, and treat him like a friend, but I get much less accomplished with him.

[Pyre]

(irrelevant post)
Psst. . . Jillian. . .
I have something for you when you get on messenger *.*

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Well, in any case, a teacher can only take you so far. The sheer drive to learn combined with a grain of salt with what you read and some objectivity go a long way as well, but i'm sure you know that already.

[Encaitare]

I've been skimming the thread, and Jillian, bravo to you for being able to deal so well with those mandatory classes! If a Christian Apologetics class were offered at my school, I might be tempted to take it, but my brain might implode from frustration and that wouldn't do me any good. =P

Anyway, the original question can be easily answered:

Might Christianity, the most practiced religion in the world, be right after all?

No. All it takes is one word: dinosaurs. There are none in the Bible, and yet, oh look, there they are in the ground. Here are some of the arguments I have encountered which Christians may use to deal with this little tidbit:

1. But the dinosaurs ARE in the Bible! The Bible talks about enormous creatures like the Behemoth! The Behemoth could be an Apatosaurus!

No, it couldn't be an Apatosaurus. They died out millions and millions of years ago, and if you go strictly by what the Bible says, the earth (and the universe, too!) is only about 6,000 years old -- that's starting with the creation of Adam.

2. But when the Bible says that the earth was created in six days, it doesn't necessarily mean 24 hour days. God could have created the dinosaurs first, then millions of years went by, and then they died and he created humans.

Doesn't matter. The Bible is supposed to be the Word of God, the Ultimate Truth about the universe. Millions and millions of years of giant reptilians living on the planet supposedly created for humans isn't something you forget to mention. Unless God's trying to keep secrets... in which case he didn't hide the evidence very well. =P

3. Humans and dinosaurs coexisted! Look, there's scientific proof! There are examples of fossilization happening over short periods of time, and human footprints have been found near dinosaur ones!

First of all, this should not even be an issue. This is a completely asinine argument -- can they even think that primitive humans would have managed to survive amongst such creatures, let alone become the dominant life form?

Second, it's a perfect example of fundamentalist Christians loving science when it actually supports something they believe. The rest of the time, it's all about faith, but when something matches up, they think it's irrefutable proof that they're right.

Third, here's how it's refutable. Maybe they're right about the fossilization. I haven't researched that enough to know. But the fossils themselves are not what's tested; it's the layers of rock above and below where the fossils were found. And if they say "Carbon dating only works for 70,000 years! (Buttheearth'snotthatoldanyway.) You say dinosaurs are older than that, but you have no way of proving it! Other elements have longer half-lives. Some that paleontologists measure are uranium and argon. There's an excellent article whcih goes into more depth about that here: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

As for the supposed human footprints, here's the "proof": http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
A bit disconcerting, perhaps. But never fear. It's important to remember that we, as humans, see what we want to see. We recognize familiar things where there's actually little resemblance, like the constellations, or the Horsehead Nebula. Paleontologists have come up with a number of arguments, including that these tracks occur as a result of the way the dinosaurs walked - more here: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
Also, there's the geology to consider. Supposing humans coexisted with the dinosaurs, why aren't human remains found in the same rock layers as dinosaur fossils?

So yeah, a long explanation to cover all the bases for one little word. I've always been a dinosaur fan; I studied them -- dare I say, religiously when I was younger. No offense was intended towards any Christians here; though if any of you hold any of these views, I hope you might be inspired to reevaluate them, or at least do some more research.

And that's all I have to say about that... for now, at least! :-D