Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
theprofessor
New member
K+Lestat said:I apologize to any I have offended personally. I appreciate everyone's input here, life is all about learning. Thank you to everyone for keeping this thread on topic and mostly civil
Example of how Bibllical History is contrived (made up)
- Thread starter Lestat
- Start date
megamania500
New member
krishna said:
By logic do you mean, "There's no concrete evidence of a God, so its logical that a god doesn't exist"?
You may as well apply the same challenge to other religions as well. Maybe wiccans, buddists, pagans, sun worshippers, satanists, muslims, and hindus, just might have something to say about the subject.
A religion, by definition, defys logic. That is why it is called a "faith". You have to have "faith" in what you believe to be true. If you could apply logic to a belief, such as proving that what your worshipping actually exists, then "faith" no longer is needed.
Imagine if there was a group of people who lived deep underground for generations, without any of them ever coming up to the earth's surface. Anything they needed was lowered down to them through a shaft on a regular basis.
During this time, the parents of the children would tell them stories of a big, bright light that came around for a certain amount of time during every 24-hour period. This light was called the "sun" and it gave life to the surface of the earth, helping plants grow which provided the food that was given to them in the shaft, and provided free light and warmth when it shined. The people didn't have actual pics of the sun, but made drawings of it.
Now, the only info the kids had to go by in determining whether or not that the sun actually existed was the others stories of it, which had been handed down to them the same way, and homemade drawings. THere was no pics, science books or anything else like that, just the words of the elders.
If, at this point, any of these people actually believed that the sun really existed, it would be based on faith alone. They would have no concrete evidence to support their beliefs. To ask them to logically support their belief in the existence of the sun, what would they have to use? Nothing. They have been told, and may believe, that an apple that they are eating had been grown with the help of the sun, but they have no proof. They may show you the apple, and explain how the sun supposedly plays a role in its growth. But logically, they would have no leg to stand on.
Some of the underground dwellers may believe in the sun's existence. They have faith that it actually exists, despite the lack of concrete evidence. And the circumstantial evidence could be just as easily argued against. Then there may be others who feel that they won't believe in the sun until they actually see it and experience its warmth first hand.
To bring them to the surface to let them actually see the sun is irrelevent. Some based their beliefs based on faith, others based theirs on logic. Point is, once they all saw the sun with their own eyes, the concept of "faith" no longer existed. It wasn't needed in believing the existence of the sun. Now they all believed. Those who had faith had their beliefs verified, while the others who needed proof of the sun's existence got it (if they all had come to the surface during nighttime...
). So you can see why you won't get a logical argument in favor of a religion. Like those people who haven't yet come to the surface, all they have to base their beliefs on is "faith". If logic could be applied, "faith" no longer applies to the belief.
With the story, we knew what they would find once they came to the surface. But none of us knows for sure what happens once we die. We all just have our beliefs to go by.
Recruit
New member
Noone can convince me that I am wrong. I have been to parties, concerts, heard moving speeches, and still no feeling can parallel Gods presence. And although I'm sure many will not believe this, I have actually seen people be healed and have been healed myself. I'm not talking about televangelists. Take one of my best friends for instance, he was diagnosed with spinal meningitis and told he would never walk again. The next day his pastor came and prayed for him, and the next morning he walked out of the hospital carrying his own suitcase. I just worked legs with him 4 hrs. ago. Just because you have not had your own personnal experience with God, does not mean He isn't real.
bignate73
New member
some are denying just the God that is represented in Christianity or any organized religion. krishna is proclaiming a universal power which is about the most humble way of saying that our minds are too feeble to put an understanding to it. which is why the majority of dieties are explained in understandable terms. think about the intellect of the common man of 2000+ years ago. that has to tell you something about how the need for explanation was quite necessary and the ultimate result was overly simplistic in nature.
personally, I'm not denying a universal force, but personally, I'm humble enough to say I don't understand it, nor do i need to worship it...just respect it for what it is.
personally, I'm not denying a universal force, but personally, I'm humble enough to say I don't understand it, nor do i need to worship it...just respect it for what it is.
krishna
New member
megamania500 said:By logic do you mean, "There's no concrete evidence of a God, so its logical that a god doesn't exist"?
You may as well apply the same challenge to other religions as well. Maybe wiccans, buddists, pagans, sun worshippers, satanists, muslims, and hindus, just might have something to say about the subject.
A religion, by definition, defys logic. That is why it is called a "faith". You have to have "faith" in what you believe to be true. If you could apply logic to a belief, such as proving that what your worshipping actually exists, then "faith" no longer is needed.
Imagine if there was a group of people who lived deep underground for generations, without any of them ever coming up to the earth's surface. Anything they needed was lowered down to them through a shaft on a regular basis.
During this time, the parents of the children would tell them stories of a big, bright light that came around for a certain amount of time during every 24-hour period. This light was called the "sun" and it gave life to the surface of the earth, helping plants grow which provided the food that was given to them in the shaft, and provided free light and warmth when it shined. The people didn't have actual pics of the sun, but made drawings of it.
Now, the only info the kids had to go by in determining whether or not that the sun actually existed was the others stories of it, which had been handed down to them the same way, and homemade drawings. THere was no pics, science books or anything else like that, just the words of the elders.
If, at this point, any of these people actually believed that the sun really existed, it would be based on faith alone. They would have no concrete evidence to support their beliefs. To ask them to logically support their belief in the existence of the sun, what would they have to use? Nothing. They have been told, and may believe, that an apple that they are eating had been grown with the help of the sun, but they have no proof. They may show you the apple, and explain how the sun supposedly plays a role in its growth. But logically, they would have no leg to stand on.
Some of the underground dwellers may believe in the sun's existence. They have faith that it actually exists, despite the lack of concrete evidence. And the circumstantial evidence could be just as easily argued against. Then there may be others who feel that they won't believe in the sun until they actually see it and experience its warmth first hand.
To bring them to the surface to let them actually see the sun is irrelevent. Some based their beliefs based on faith, others based theirs on logic. Point is, once they all saw the sun with their own eyes, the concept of "faith" no longer existed. It wasn't needed in believing the existence of the sun. Now they all believed. Those who had faith had their beliefs verified, while the others who needed proof of the sun's existence got it (if they all had come to the surface during nighttime...
So you can see why you won't get a logical argument in favor of a religion. Like those people who haven't yet come to the surface, all they have to base their beliefs on is "faith". If logic could be applied, "faith" no longer applies to the belief.
With the story, we knew what they would find once they came to the surface. But none of us knows for sure what happens once we die. We all just have our beliefs to go by.
A true logician CAN and WILL present a logical argument in favor of their beliefs, no matter how illogical they may seem. I'm asking them to step outside of faith and at least apply some logic to thier beliefs. It can and has been done, even with christianity. There have been many great catholic theologians who have contributed a great deal to logic and philosophy throughout history.
krishna
New member
Recruit said:
If God is omnipresent - all-present (meaning he is everywhere) - then why would someone have to go to church or talk to a pastor to experience him? If you opened up your heart to his presence at a concert (or anywhere for that matter) like others have claimed to have done, why would you not feel him there also? How can you say others haven't felt the same presence you talk about while they were at a concert? Expand your mind bro. What if you got stranded on a desert island with no bible and no church? Should you not be able to walk with God then? And if you could walk with God then, why can't you walk with God now? Or at a concert? Or anywhere for that matter? Don't limit your experiences to a building; that's what the institution of religion wants you to do. They want you to conform and obey their rules. They want you to donate and contribute your time to their needs. Free yourself! God is outside of that building. God is in the children that need your help, or in the old lady that needs help crossing the road. God is in the river as you sit and watch the ripples dance with your thoughts. God is in the trees, flowers, weeds, birds, mountains, plains, horizons; He is everywhere!
Recruit
New member
Hey Bro., you are right, you can feel God anywhere and anytime...I never said it had to be at a church. I have felt God in my bedroom while kneeling by my bed to pray. I could sit here and give reason after reason why I believe in God and his word, but it would do me no good. Untill you've had your own own experience there is no way I'll ever change your mind.krishna said:
yes and nokrishna said:
it isnt that they truely seperate us from the infinite. It just gives us the illusion of separation. As the Concious Observer looking on, perfectly nuetral to all experiences and understanding, the separation is mearly identity mind being expressed.
At the animal stage of our evolution we needed to create emotion and fear and Ego in order to survive. All humans operate within a physical body(obviously) but we are tied simultaneously to the astral(upper and lower) as well as celestial planes as well. This is our subjective reality. Part of us being the body needs identity to sustain life for if we reached the state beyond that of the Avatar(Jesus, Krishna) the enrgy could not be contained in a human coil. those beings were pure infinite expressed.
we are all that is, was and will ever be.
megamania500
New member
krishna said:
So, in other words, your not asking whether or not there are logical arguments. But rather, if someone from EF can contribute further on the already existing logical arguments that theologians have contributed throughout history already.
Let's see here. If someone experienced some type of apparition at some point in their lives (or witnessed a UFO, or had a premonition that came true, or any "supernatural" experience that defies common beliefs), that person would likely go throughout their lives believing that apparitions exist. Someone would be hard-pressed to convince that person that what he experienced was impossible or simply not true.
For someone who questions the validity of that person's experience, he may ask that person to establish validity of that experience by applying logic to it. But is the believer necessarily in a position to do that? Not everyone who experiences something supernatural is a natural-born philosopher or a true theologian. The same is true for those who have been touched in some way by a spiritual awakening. Their beliefs don't stem from our formal principles of reasoning, but despite it.
So the question isn't whether or not someone can successfully apply logic to their personal faith and/or beliefs, the question is whether or not logic is relevent for those who truly believe. We already know that being able to apply logic is essential for non-believers.
krishna
New member
megamania500 said:
I was thinking arguments aside from personal experience. Say for instance, the problem of evil, the problem of omnipotence, the divine foreknowledge and free will dilemma. I know philosophy professors who are devout christians and have good logical arguments in favor of their beliefs. I'm just trying to get these guys thinking logically so that they won't get slaughtered in debates like these. There are even ways to base valid logical arguments on experience. And yes, my question was whether or not someone could apply logic to their beliefs.
theprofessor
New member
im interested to hear what you think a logical argument is for Christianity... any examples?...krishna said:
P
Phaded
Guest
the truth is lestat makes religion threads to provoke attention..
theprofessor
New member
^^^no reply? no logical argument? im trying to learn here... and if you know of some logical arguments for Christianity i would appreciate if you shared them...theprofessor said:
krishna
New member
Ok let's start very basic. This first argument is for the existence of God. It doesn't necessarily claim that the existence of God is of any particular religion, but it's a good starting ground to establish first and foremost that God exists. After we've established this, we'll move into more specific arguments of theology.
Argument: There had to be a beginning - a first cause. Even if evolution is true, what caused the first organism/organisms that everything evolved from? It is absurd and illogical to say that they just came into being on thier own. Every effect has a cause. In this case, evolution would favor a creator because if everything was traced back to the simplest forms of life, there had to be a point where it can't get any simpler, and you can't trace it back any further. This would abolish the idea that there is an infinite series of causes (one argument used to try and disprove creation). So if there was a first cause, there had to be something that caused it, and that something logically has to exist outside the chain of events of cause and effect. And in order for that to be logically true, this creator would have to be infinite in time and space unless you want to regress to the argument that the creator just came into being out of nowhere with no cause. That argument, of course, is illogical because if its invalidity.
Argument: There had to be a beginning - a first cause. Even if evolution is true, what caused the first organism/organisms that everything evolved from? It is absurd and illogical to say that they just came into being on thier own. Every effect has a cause. In this case, evolution would favor a creator because if everything was traced back to the simplest forms of life, there had to be a point where it can't get any simpler, and you can't trace it back any further. This would abolish the idea that there is an infinite series of causes (one argument used to try and disprove creation). So if there was a first cause, there had to be something that caused it, and that something logically has to exist outside the chain of events of cause and effect. And in order for that to be logically true, this creator would have to be infinite in time and space unless you want to regress to the argument that the creator just came into being out of nowhere with no cause. That argument, of course, is illogical because if its invalidity.
Lestat said:I apologize to any I have offended personally. I appreciate everyone's input here, life is all about learning. Thank you to everyone for keeping this thread on topic and mostly civil
You didn't offend me at all, there were pleanty of points in this thread that I believe and some that I don't. I converted to christianity recently, I don't agree with everything. I do however enjoy learning the bible and the church I attend is very good at teaching. HOWEVER, I am still my own person and still find my interpretation or what I actually feel is fact or fiction differs from the next.
Hell, maybe I'm not christian!
You would be surprised at how many heated conversations I've had with my own mother because I didn't believe in certain things. She is a hard core christian, I am not. I've attended many of churches of many religion. My kids attend christian church and classes but I tell them every day that GOD loves all, no matter what religion.
I'm still learning, I don't ever say that I know everything... and doubt I ever will.
krishna
New member
Ok most of the philosophical debate is for the existence of God. I'm not quite sure if there is any logical way to prove that christianity is the only way. I have one that will show that Jesus is the son of God:
Premise 1: Jesus existed
Premise 2: What Jesus said is true
Premise 3: Jesus said we are ALL sons and daughters of God
Conclusion: Since Jesus existed, and what he said is true, then he is the son of God because he said we are ALL sons and daughters of God, and he is surely included in ALL.
I know this isn't what the christians are looking for, but you can't deny its validity. You can't prove it's sound unless you can prove that all the premises are true, but the conclusion does logically follow from the premises. Christians will not like the fact that this does not seperate Jesus from the rest of us. But if you believe in Jesus and what he said, how can you deny this argument? Jesus didn't come to seperate, he came to unite people in God. So why then would christians feel the need to be set apart from other religions? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Nonetheless, this is an argument for the fact that Jesus is the son of God. If Jesus is a son of God, then he is also the son of God. If I am a son of my dad, I am also the son of my dad. When the people began to worship Jesus as god, he would refer to himself as "the son of man" so they wouldn't error in their ways. If I am a son of God (which Jesus said I was) then I am also the son of God. The part of the bible where it says God gave his only son to die for us was 1) written by man, 2) was not spoken by Jesus himself, and 3) contradicts what Jesus actually said. You be the judge.
Premise 1: Jesus existed
Premise 2: What Jesus said is true
Premise 3: Jesus said we are ALL sons and daughters of God
Conclusion: Since Jesus existed, and what he said is true, then he is the son of God because he said we are ALL sons and daughters of God, and he is surely included in ALL.
I know this isn't what the christians are looking for, but you can't deny its validity. You can't prove it's sound unless you can prove that all the premises are true, but the conclusion does logically follow from the premises. Christians will not like the fact that this does not seperate Jesus from the rest of us. But if you believe in Jesus and what he said, how can you deny this argument? Jesus didn't come to seperate, he came to unite people in God. So why then would christians feel the need to be set apart from other religions? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Nonetheless, this is an argument for the fact that Jesus is the son of God. If Jesus is a son of God, then he is also the son of God. If I am a son of my dad, I am also the son of my dad. When the people began to worship Jesus as god, he would refer to himself as "the son of man" so they wouldn't error in their ways. If I am a son of God (which Jesus said I was) then I am also the son of God. The part of the bible where it says God gave his only son to die for us was 1) written by man, 2) was not spoken by Jesus himself, and 3) contradicts what Jesus actually said. You be the judge.
Last edited:
theprofessor
New member
this is what i was trying to get at by asking for the logical arguments...krishna said:
yes... logic that God exists is very valid... but "God existing" is not realy a religeon...
so like the other post said above... logic is not realy a part of religeon...
especialy if you have to base it off premises...
If you only beleive what your eyes can see then I guess you believe Criss Angel actually makes animals disappear and that he can saw people in half.
Do you believe in DNA, ATOMS, MOLECULES, VIRUSES? You cant see them so I guess you don't believe in them.
As to your Y chronomosome comments. Please look up the word IN-VITRO or brush up on your sex education.
I NEVER used the word parthenogenesis.
Do you believe in DNA, ATOMS, MOLECULES, VIRUSES? You cant see them so I guess you don't believe in them.
As to your Y chronomosome comments. Please look up the word IN-VITRO or brush up on your sex education.
I NEVER used the word parthenogenesis.
[/QUOTE]foreigngirl said:
God still hasn't shown up to settle the argument.
foreigngirl
New member
[/QUOTE]BigRupe said:
If you believe in DNA and atoms and moleculs, then you wouldnt be so blind on your outlook of religion (blind).
Oh, and the Chris Angel thing, try applying that to Jesus too, the raising of dead, healing the blind etc...when you are talking stupid anyways
krishna
New member
For instance:
Premise 1: The bible is the law that God laid down for all humanity
Premise 2: The bible strictly teaches that you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven
Premise 3: The bible is the only true word of God
Conclusion: Since the bible is the only true word of God, and it strictly teaches that you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven, then you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven.
I, personally, don't believe any of the premises are true, but it is indeed a valid argument for christianity.
Premise 1: The bible is the law that God laid down for all humanity
Premise 2: The bible strictly teaches that you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven
Premise 3: The bible is the only true word of God
Conclusion: Since the bible is the only true word of God, and it strictly teaches that you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven, then you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven.
I, personally, don't believe any of the premises are true, but it is indeed a valid argument for christianity.
Last edited:
