The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[NVUplandHunter]

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

That comment was not intended to be taken offensively.

Nearly all of the stories of the Bible have a logical conclusion that collides with a magical explanation. A whale does not have the available oxygen in its stomach to sustain a human for 3 days, but if you have faith in a god that can do anything then he could have made it happen. No number of people can produce a volume or pitch capable of knocking down strong city walls, but if god made it happen then there ya go. Just a couple of examples.
As far as the origin of the universe, shoot man, I know as much as the next non-scientist that grew up reading national geographic magazines and looking into scientific articles as they come out with new data. I know that we are the product of incredibly special events that had to take place over billions of years, but that does not lead me to dedicate my entire life to serve one of thousands of deities created by other humans from ancient times because we haven’t witnessed the process in our minuscule timeline of existence yet.
I have no problem with religion as long as it’s not shoved down my throat. My only point in this is that if people are adamant that I’ll spend eternity in a blowtorch for not believing what they do, I can certainly defend why I think I won’t.

fair point to give as a non-religious person. i will counter that with that something you've pointed out.

One major thing that makes Christianity different than basically all other religions im familiar with is that there are unbiased accounts that Jesus really walked the earth. yes they dont talk about the miracles. but my point being the "man made" part. Christianity was not made by man but by Jesus (God) himself. that is a recorded fact. thats a major difference from other religions. and ill actually take it a step further and say that the Catholic church was created by Jesus and after Martin Luther did his thing, the rest of the 45,000 denominations were made by man. that will upset some people but its just true..

anyhow, ive had to stop and start this comment a few times now so ive lost my train of thought so ill leave it at that. This is an interesting convo to me so im trying to be as open minded to hear others positions so i hope im not coming across as rude or anything.

 

[Jpsmith1]

if we cant prove things dont exists in the world how do we have an extinction list where we have proven there are no more mammoths in the universe anymore? maybe i misunderstand your point but i think we can prove something isnt here if its not here...

Taking the Ivory Billed woodpecker as a for instance.

The last documented sighting was in 1944. So, it has been over 80 years since someone has seen one.

They're considered "functionally extinct" meaning that, since nobody has seen one or seen evidence of one in 81 years, we're pretty sure there aren't any more.

Additionally, take the coelacanth. Thought to be extinct, one was caught and identified and upended that idea.


So, people are far more thoughtful about this than maybe you're crediting them

 

[Texasbuckeye]

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

That comment was not intended to be taken offensively.

Nearly all of the stories of the Bible have a logical conclusion that collides with a magical explanation. A whale does not have the available oxygen in its stomach to sustain a human for 3 days, but if you have faith in a god that can do anything then he could have made it happen. No number of people can produce a volume or pitch capable of knocking down strong city walls, but if god made it happen then there ya go. Just a couple of examples.
As far as the origin of the universe, shoot man, I know as much as the next non-scientist that grew up reading national geographic magazines and looking into scientific articles as they come out with new data. I know that we are the product of incredibly special events that had to take place over billions of years, but that does not lead me to dedicate my entire life to serve one of thousands of deities created by other humans from ancient times because we haven’t witnessed the process in our minuscule timeline of existence yet.
I have no problem with religion as long as it’s not shoved down my throat. My only point in this is that if people are adamant that I’ll spend eternity in a blowtorch for not believing what they do, I can certainly defend why I think I won’t.

Nearly all? Is that a stretch or what? Come on now, most of the bible is not miracles. yes there are some in there, but the majority of the bible is not magic interwoven with logic.

I didn't take the original comment offensively at all. I was just pointing out that non-believers have more faith than believers, because the "logical scientific" way of describing how we came to be is so full of holes it isn't funny. A lot of faith and a lot of "miracles" to get where we are today.

On the other side, believers have a cohesive written out picture of why and how we are here and what our end game is. And many have personal experiences with the Almighty to corroborate the written out cohesive blueprint.

That's all I was trying to point out.

 

[Jpsmith1]

fair point to give as a non-religious person. i will counter that with that something you've pointed out.

One major thing that makes Christianity different than basically all other religions im familiar with is that there are unbiased accounts that Jesus really walked the earth. yes they dont talk about the miracles. but my point being the "man made" part. Christianity was not made by man but by Jesus (God) himself. that is a recorded fact. thats a major difference from other religions. and ill actually take it a step further and say that the Catholic church was created by Jesus and after Martin Luther did his thing, the rest of the 45,000 denominations were made by man. that will upset some people but its just true..

anyhow, ive had to stop and start this comment a few times now so ive lost my train of thought so ill leave it at that. This is an interesting convo to me so im trying to be as open minded to hear others positions so i hope im not coming across as rude or anything.

Jesus being a real person doesn't necessarily conflate with him being divine, right?

Mohammed is widely considered to have been a real person, too. By this line of reasoning, Islam is as valid as Christianity.

Sooo, does that change the calculus?

 

[go_deep]

Jesus being a real person doesn't necessarily conflate with him being divine, right?

Mohammed is widely considered to have been a real person, too. By this line of reasoning, Islam is as valid as Christianity.

Sooo, does that change the calculus?

Did Mohammed ever claim to be God?
No, Muhammad did not claim to be God. He consistently presented himself as a prophet, a messenger of God, not as God himself.

Jesus, did.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Did Mohammed ever claim to be God?
No, Muhammad did not claim to be God. He consistently presented himself as a prophet, a messenger of God, not as God himself.

Jesus, did.

Thats not exactly the claim being made in the quoted post, though.

Jesus is a real person who claimed divinity.

Only the bible talks about the miracles, but we can handwave that away, right because we already believe that's all true and we're searching for justifications.

 

[Beagle1]

Maybe someone can change your WKR status to Colombo, LOL

Don’t worry if this thread lasts until deer season I will mostly magically disappear then.

It’s become a bit of Groundhog Day anyways.

Believer’s - faith and the Bible

Nonbeliever - evidence and reason

 

[go_deep]

Thats not exactly the claim being made in the quoted post, though.

Jesus is a real person who claimed divinity.

Only the bible talks about the miracles, but we can handwave that away, right because we already believe that's all true and we're searching for justifications.

I'm going to be straight with you, I'm not following what your saying.
I totally understand we have some different perspectives here, so I'm honestly asking you to try and help me understand better what your saying?

 

[Beagle1]

Nearly all? Is that a stretch or what? Come on now, most of the bible is not miracles. yes there are some in there, but the majority of the bible is not magic interwoven with logic.

I didn't take the original comment offensively at all. I was just pointing out that non-believers have more faith than believers, because the "logical scientific" way of describing how we came to be is so full of holes it isn't funny. A lot of faith and a lot of "miracles" to get where we are today.

On the other side, believers have a cohesive written out picture of why and how we are here and what our end game is. And many have personal experiences with the Almighty to corroborate the written out cohesive blueprint.

That's all I was trying to point out.

You already made the “science takes more faith” claim and it was already addressed. Repeating it doesn’t strengthen it.

You know better than most that science isn't about faith, it's about evidence. The germ theory of disease was once ridiculed and dismissed, even by experts, yet it's now a foundational pillar of modern medicine. Why? Because the evidence won out. Science is built on evidence, revises when wrong, and makes progress by acknowledging uncertainty. Faith starts with a conclusion and works backward. You also downplay biblical miracles as if they’re side notes. Christianity hinges on the miracle of the resurrection. Remove that one miracle, and most of the basis for it collapses. So which is it, are miracles central or conveniently put on the back shelf when challenged? And claiming personal experiences as confirmation ignores what has been posted here many times before, that people in every faith say the same thing. You continue to state your beliefs as certainty without the proof just as believers in other religions do.

 

[NVUplandHunter]

Jesus being a real person doesn't necessarily conflate with him being divine, right?

Mohammed is widely considered to have been a real person, too. By this line of reasoning, Islam is as valid as Christianity.

Sooo, does that change the calculus?

Jesus proclaimed divinity multiple times, Mohammed did not. Islam also refers to Jesus. granted not the same way that Christianity does, but just as further evidence of Jesus being real.

you're an educated guy from what ive been able to tell reading your comments. not that i agree with your position but you do know some things and i give credit where credit due. With that being said, can you tell me of another religious head figure that has made the divine claim and also that they are the way the truth and the life and that no one gets to God except through Him? Thats a bold statement that i believe makes Jesus different than any other head figure.

It doesnt change anything for me in my stance, the claims are different. being a prophet which is not a divine position is different than making the claim of God.

 

[NVUplandHunter]

Jesus being a real person doesn't necessarily conflate with him being divine, right?

Mohammed is widely considered to have been a real person, too. By this line of reasoning, Islam is as valid as Christianity.

Sooo, does that change the calculus?

after reading your comment again and mine i think i may have mistaken your point.

are you making the counter argument that mohammed being real make their religion as real as Christianity?

If thats the case, i would disagree and the point i was trying to make in the comment you replied to was that many other religions were made by man, but only one was made by God himself. i cant recall any other religion that has a leader that defined themself as God and making a church. Others may have made churches for a god they believe in. but Jesus Himself started the Catholic church. Thats the difference i was pointing out in relation to the other religions.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

You already made the “science takes more faith” claim and it was already addressed. Repeating it doesn’t strengthen it.

You know better than most that science isn't about faith, it's about evidence. The germ theory of disease was once ridiculed and dismissed, even by experts, yet it's now a foundational pillar of modern medicine. Why? Because the evidence won out. Science is built on evidence, revises when wrong, and makes progress by acknowledging uncertainty. Faith starts with a conclusion and works backward. You also downplay biblical miracles as if they’re side notes. Christianity hinges on the miracle of the resurrection. Remove that one miracle, and most of the basis for it collapses. So which is it, are miracles central or conveniently put on the back shelf when challenged? And claiming personal experiences as confirmation ignores what has been posted here many times before, that people in every faith say the same thing. You continue to state your beliefs as certainty without the proof just as believers in other religions do.

Beagle, this will be my last response to you since we have played this back and forth enough, so feel free to respond but I won't after this one (meaning I will let you get the last word).

I am not trying to convert you into anything. I understand science and its advances and how things have come into being a lot more than the average joe. I guess you could call me a educated christian, although my theology education is far lacking. I will freely admit that. But what I do know is this: science is a good explainer of how things work. That is all it is. And even then, sometimes science takes some really big leaps and jumps off a cliff and dies...sometimes those cliff dives land in water. But in any event, there are large gaps in our understanding of how even the basic cell was formed, let along multicellular organisms and then multiorgan organisms. We have little understanding of how really the atom is held together. We talk about darm matter and anti-matter that in a quantum mechanics idea seems to work great, but put into applied physics make zero sense. We talk about things like "ALL Matter in the universe" was once contained in a singularity, and then exploded, and is now expanding....do you ever think about what it is expanding into? empty space? where did that come from? why wasn't there any matter in the empty space that collected into another singularity. We simply have no answers for such hugely consequential issues. Some of us cling to science to give us peace, because it is testable, repeatable, reliable (most of the time) and that gives us a sense of control and peace. Some of us cling to other explanations that make more sense to us.

Whatever it is you are searching for, I do hope you find it. I feel you have been secretly hoping someone could enlighten you in this thread. That you came for a purpose. But maybe not. Maybe you came to just be a conversationalist in a challenging topic for you. Either way, you have been told. You can not say you did not know. When your time comes, I hope it doesn't find you adrift in empty space for eternity. I hope you find the one true singularity out there that explodes spontaneously and turns into your universe.

 

[Bugger]

I didn't take the original comment offensively at all. I was just pointing out that non-believers have more faith than believers, because the "logical scientific" way of describing how we came to be is so full of holes it isn't funny. A lot of faith and a lot of "miracles" to get where we are today.

I think our opinions differ in that I don’t believe any faith is required to be a non-believer. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to be in a natural state of curiosity and wonder. Atheists and agnostics don’t NEED an answer to the origin of the universe or life itself. We just enjoy the ride for what it is and work with what is known at the time. It’s really not a stretch that some crazy stuff would happen given infinite time, space, and material.

 

[NVUplandHunter]

I think our opinions differ in that I don’t believe any faith is required to be a non-believer. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to be in a natural state of curiosity and wonder. Atheists and agnostics don’t NEED an answer to the origin of the universe or life itself. We just enjoy the ride for what it is and work with what is known at the time. It’s really not a stretch that some crazy stuff would happen given infinite time, space, and material.

you have to have faith that the science is correct do you not? the definition of "believe" is to accept something is true. Well how can you accept that truth if you dont have faith i the source of it? The definition of faith is complete trust in someone or something. so in order to believe something you must have faith in complete trusting the source of it.

I think Texasbuckeye is totally correct in that a non believer needs more faith to believe in the science version. heck, evolution is still a theory unproven yet its widely accepted as fact. to believe every single living carbon based thing on this earth was a product of a bunch of small things colliding at the perfect ratio and BAM life was made? that takes a ton of faith to believe in. because you either question it, or you fully trust the person who told you or the book you read. No different than someone sharing the Gospel with me and believing it.

To believe in something other than religion does take a faith even if its in yourself and your own personal understanding of a subject. I choose not to have faith in myself but in a high being I call God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Beagle1]

Beagle, this will be my last response to you since we have played this back and forth enough, so feel free to respond but I won't after this one (meaning I will let you get the last word).

I am not trying to convert you into anything. I understand science and its advances and how things have come into being a lot more than the average joe. I guess you could call me a educated christian, although my theology education is far lacking. I will freely admit that. But what I do know is this: science is a good explainer of how things work. That is all it is. And even then, sometimes science takes some really big leaps and jumps off a cliff and dies...sometimes those cliff dives land in water. But in any event, there are large gaps in our understanding of how even the basic cell was formed, let along multicellular organisms and then multiorgan organisms. We have little understanding of how really the atom is held together. We talk about darm matter and anti-matter that in a quantum mechanics idea seems to work great, but put into applied physics make zero sense. We talk about things like "ALL Matter in the universe" was once contained in a singularity, and then exploded, and is now expanding....do you ever think about what it is expanding into? empty space? where did that come from? why wasn't there any matter in the empty space that collected into another singularity. We simply have no answers for such hugely consequential issues. Some of us cling to science to give us peace, because it is testable, repeatable, reliable (most of the time) and that gives us a sense of control and peace. Some of us cling to other explanations that make more sense to us.

Whatever it is you are searching for, I do hope you find it. I feel you have been secretly hoping someone could enlighten you in this thread. That you came for a purpose. But maybe not. Maybe you came to just be a conversationalist in a challenging topic for you. Either way, you have been told. You can not say you did not know. When your time comes, I hope it doesn't find you adrift in empty space for eternity. I hope you find the one true singularity out there that explodes spontaneously and turns into your universe.

I appreciate the civility in your last post. You’re right: science isn’t omniscient but it thrives precisely because it admits what it doesn’t know and then works to learn more. You see that as a weakness, I see it as a strength.

Yes, there are gaps in our knowledge, the origins of life, the nature of consciousness, the fabric of spacetime, but inserting a divine cause into those gaps isn’t an explanation, it’s a filler. You speak of the "one true singularity". That is less abstract than the cosmic singularity you question?

I’m not seeking peace through science. I like figuring out what is real and what isn’t. That means I don’t mind asking or responding to questions. I came here open to hearing the best reasons to believe and thought, mostly incorrectly, that believers were equally open to hearing the best reasons not to. Because if either side already knows all the answers, then what’s the point of any of this?

 

[Texasbuckeye]

I think our opinions differ in that I don’t believe any faith is required to be a non-believer. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to be in a natural state of curiosity and wonder. Atheists and agnostics don’t NEED an answer to the origin of the universe or life itself. We just enjoy the ride for what it is and work with what is known at the time. It’s really not a stretch that some crazy stuff would happen given infinite time, space, and material.

Infinite material is not what the scientists have postulated ever. As we all know, the amount of matter for the whole universe was present “in the beginning” at the singularity and no more matter is allowed to be added due to the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, given some time, some space, and some material, we exist. There is nothing infinite about any of the terms you brought up.

 

[Beagle1]

I think our opinions differ in that I don’t believe any faith is required to be a non-believer. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to be in a natural state of curiosity and wonder. Atheists and agnostics don’t NEED an answer to the origin of the universe or life itself. We just enjoy the ride for what it is and work with what is known at the time. It’s really not a stretch that some crazy stuff would happen given infinite time, space, and material.

Texasbuckeye is correct that science relies on finite quantities of matter and energy. The singularity contained all the material that exists today, and no credible physicist claims otherwise. But you are right to ask why, unlike theological explanations, science doesn’t fill that gap with a divine cause

 

[Bugger]

Infinite material is not what the scientists have postulated ever. As we all know, the amount of matter for the whole universe was present “in the beginning” at the singularity and no more matter is allowed to be added due to the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, given some time, some space, and some material, we exist. There is nothing infinite about any of the terms you brought up.

That’s a theory that only applies to our observable universe, we don’t know what’s beyond that. Until somebody reaches the end of space and figures out when time began and will end, then it’s all hypothetically infinite. Nobody is tied down to fully commit to scientific faith as it currently stands.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

That’s a theory that only applies to our observable universe, we don’t know what’s beyond that. Until somebody reaches the end of space and figures out when time began and will end, then it’s all hypothetically infinite. Nobody is tied down to fully commit to scientific faith as it currently stands.

Now wait a second, you were just talking about who believes in logic and who believes in magic, and now you are talking about what is past the “end of space” and figuring out “before” and “after” time began and ends.

I like the way you think. Its logic if you think it but magic if someone else does. Thats fun.

You know the Bible has those concepts already played out, but heres me trying not to get you to think magically….

Heres a simple question for the logical people in the room:

When all the matter that existed in the universe was all together in the singularity, what force was holding it together? And then why did that same force decide to not work all of the sudden and explode?

Again, there is an explanation that some of us give that actually is less magical than the explanation science gives.

 

[Jpsmith1]

after reading your comment again and mine i think i may have mistaken your point.

are you making the counter argument that mohammed being real make their religion as real as Christianity?

If thats the case, i would disagree and the point i was trying to make in the comment you replied to was that many other religions were made by man, but only one was made by God himself. i cant recall any other religion that has a leader that defined themself as God and making a church. Others may have made churches for a god they believe in. but Jesus Himself started the Catholic church. Thats the difference i was pointing out in relation to the other religions.

Claims are just that. Claims.

Claims must be demonstrated with evidence.

What I find interesting is that you'll immediately go to "the miracles" that Jesus performed. But those all exist within the Claims today. The Bible, taken as a whole, is the claim. It's not externally supported and what external support is offered is extremely weak.

I mean, let's take some of the stuff that supposedly happened when Jesus was resurrected.

Matthew 27: 51-54

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

Where are the external validation of stories like this?

Surely SOMEONE would have noticed a bunch of what amount to zombies wandering the streets and thought "That’s unusual for a Tuesday afternoon, maybe I'll write that down."