Evidence for God from Science

Please get back on topic. If someone wants to ask another question, start a new thread.

RickD wrote:Please get back on topic. If someone wants to ask another question, start a new thread.

I agree. I think this thread is pretty much done. The original topic was only directed to Atheists and I provided an answer, then asked the flip side of the question to the OP which prompted everybody but Atheists to reply. I replied, I haven't seen Audie for a while, I doubt any other atheists are going to come forth; I think we're done here.

Peace
Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Please get back on topic. If someone wants to ask another question, start a new thread.

I agree. I think this thread is pretty much done. The original topic was only directed to Atheists and I provided an answer, then asked the flip side of the question to the OP which prompted everybody but Atheists to reply. I replied, I haven't seen Audie for a while, I doubt any other atheists are going to come forth; I think we're done here.

Peace
Ken

Kenny,

The flip side of this:

"If you knew that Christianity was true, would you become a christian"

Is not this:

If you knew theism was false, would'nt you become Atheist?

The flip side of the first, would be more like this:

If you knew Christianity was not true, would you stop being a Christian?

If you worded it that way, I wouldn't have made an issue like I did. The first question was about Christianity. And your question was about theism. Not all theists are Christians.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Please get back on topic. If someone wants to ask another question, start a new thread.

I agree. I think this thread is pretty much done. The original topic was only directed to Atheists and I provided an answer, then asked the flip side of the question to the OP which prompted everybody but Atheists to reply. I replied, I haven't seen Audie for a while, I doubt any other atheists are going to come forth; I think we're done here.

Peace
Ken

Kenny,

The flip side of this:

"If you knew that Christianity was true, would you become a christian"

Is not this:

If you knew theism was false, would'nt you become Atheist?

The flip side of the first, would be more like this:

If you knew Christianity was not true, would you stop being a Christian?

If you worded it that way, I wouldn't have made an issue like I did. The first question was about Christianity. And your question was about theism. Not all theists are Christians.

You're right! My reply was not an exact flip side of the OP. I used theism instead of Christianity because I felt he may go from one religion to another had I worded it that way, and I wanted to see if he would be willing to give up religion completely; the opposite of what I said I would do. Truth be told I didn't expect things to go the way they did, but I am not surprised.

Ken

Kenny needs to realize that he cannot bring up other god's anyway when it comes to Pascal's Wager instead he must consider heaven/hell vs We just die and thats it,which is what atheists believe so based on this Kenny cannot ask what would we do if we were wrong because if we were wrong we would not even know or realize we believed in Jesus and were wrong but if Kenny is wrong he is in trouble.A person just cannot hedge their bets with atheism at all and atheism has no evidence behind it,even false religions have more evidence than atheism does.Pascal was a gambling man and knew about odds of winning.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny needs to realize that he cannot bring up other god's anyway when it comes to Pascal's Wager instead he must consider heaven/hell vs We just die and thats it,which is what atheists believe so based on this Kenny cannot ask what would we do if we were wrong because if we were wrong we would not even know or realize we believed in Jesus and were wrong but if Kenny is wrong he is in trouble.A person just cannot hedge their bets with atheism at all and atheism has no evidence behind it,even false religions have more evidence than atheism does.Pascal was a gambling man and knew about odds of winning.

Wrong. Pascal's Wager is supposed to look at things from the Atheist POV which sees all religions as equally flawed, not the Christians who only see their religion as authentic. Thus your argument fails.

Ken

This counterargument so far is a bit confusing. It sounds like the "you" in this question is being assumed to be plural by the answerers but singular by the questioner. It's trivially true that theism would still exist if others didn't have this knowledge, yet equally trivial that it would not if it were defacto knowledge by everyone. But the question doesn't really have the same implications as the original (can't well believe if you (singular or plural) know to the contrary), so I'm not sure why it's being asked.

Anyway, I'm not an atheist, but if Christianity were (without a doubt) true I'd have to read up more on what hell actually constitutes. I don't like the idea of eternal life, but if the only alternative is the eternal experience of effectively unbearable torment then it's kind of a no-brainer to me. I never really liked the idea of Pascal's Wager, as it seemed like an incredibly vacuous basis on which to define oneself, but I've experienced enough pain and horror to know I'd only last so long under torture before losing any shred of personal dignity.

Moreover, if Christianity *is* defacto true, and hell is a sort of non-choice (i.e. obviously undesireable) then, as God is now proven to be good, the only motive I could see for choosing the alternative is holding onto grudge/spite/hatred. Which was only acquired during one's relatively short life under the imperfect understanding of these (perceived) wrongs done. I can understand the sentiment of it being a begrudged conversion at first, but unless I'm misunderstanding what hell we'd be assuming to be true I don't even see how one could choose to deny God at that point without being delusional or having no experience with or concept of what they're really asking for (i.e. very sheltered life).

plouiswork wrote:This counterargument so far is a bit confusing. It sounds like the "you" in this question is being assumed to be plural by the answerers but singular by the questioner.

True! The counterargument was about one person getting this knowledge, but the replies were about everybody getting this knowledge. That’s why I kept insisting my question was not being answered.

plouiswork wrote:It's trivially true that theism would still exist if others didn't have this knowledge, yet equally trivial that it would not if it were defacto knowledge by everyone. But the question doesn't really have the same implications as the original (can't well believe if you (singular or plural) know to the contrary), so I'm not sure why it's being asked.

True! And that goes both ways; can’t really be an Atheist if you know to the contrary.

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, I'm not an atheist, but if Christianity were (without a doubt) true I'd have to read up more on what hell actually constitutes. I don't like the idea of eternal life, but if the only alternative is the eternal experience of effectively unbearable torment then it's kind of a no-brainer to me.

I agree. If Christianity were true, my first order of business would be to not only find out about Heaven and Hell, but to also find out which version of Christianity Christians preach about is true! (as I eluded to earlier, I get a feeling none of them would be completely true) I think one of the easiest ways of getting confused about Christianity is to listen to multiple Christians description of it; (sorta like the guy with 2 watches who will never know what time it is) There seems to be multiple versions such as:

*Some believe in the trinity, some don’t (I believe Christian Science fits that category amongst many others)
*Some believe all the stories of the Bible are literally true, some don’t
*Some believe in evolution; some don’t
*Some believe in eternal torture in Hell for non believers; some don’t

And the list goes on. But like I said I think my first order of business would be to find out which version is the truth, and make the most of whatever that is.


Ken

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:This counterargument so far is a bit confusing. It sounds like the "you" in this question is being assumed to be plural by the answerers but singular by the questioner.

True! The counterargument was about one person getting this knowledge, but the replies were about everybody getting this knowledge. That’s why I kept insisting my question was not being answered.

plouiswork wrote:It's trivially true that theism would still exist if others didn't have this knowledge, yet equally trivial that it would not if it were defacto knowledge by everyone. But the question doesn't really have the same implications as the original (can't well believe if you (singular or plural) know to the contrary), so I'm not sure why it's being asked.

True! And that goes both ways; can’t really be an Atheist if you know to the contrary.

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, I'm not an atheist, but if Christianity were (without a doubt) true I'd have to read up more on what hell actually constitutes. I don't like the idea of eternal life, but if the only alternative is the eternal experience of effectively unbearable torment then it's kind of a no-brainer to me.

I agree. If Christianity were true, my first order of business would be to not only find out about Heaven and Hell, but to also find out which version of Christianity Christians preach about is true! (as I eluded to earlier, I get a feeling none of them would be completely true) I think one of the easiest ways of getting confused about Christianity is to listen to multiple Christians description of it; (sorta like the guy with 2 watches who will never know what time it is) There seems to be multiple versions such as:

*Some believe in the trinity, some don’t (I believe Christian Science fits that category amongst many others)
*Some believe all the stories of the Bible are literally true, some don’t
*Some believe in evolution; some don’t
*Some believe in eternal torture in Hell for non believers; some don’t

And the list goes on. But like I said I think my first order of business would be to find out which version is the truth, and make the most of whatever that is.


Ken

I answered yes to your question (in a roundabout way). We all want to know the truth and when it's undeniable to us we just have to face it. I don't think Christian Science is really Christianity - there are many denominations accepted by each other as mainstream Christianity but Christian Science is one of the belief systems outside that.

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:This counterargument so far is a bit confusing. It sounds like the "you" in this question is being assumed to be plural by the answerers but singular by the questioner.

True! The counterargument was about one person getting this knowledge, but the replies were about everybody getting this knowledge. That’s why I kept insisting my question was not being answered.

plouiswork wrote:It's trivially true that theism would still exist if others didn't have this knowledge, yet equally trivial that it would not if it were defacto knowledge by everyone. But the question doesn't really have the same implications as the original (can't well believe if you (singular or plural) know to the contrary), so I'm not sure why it's being asked.

True! And that goes both ways; can’t really be an Atheist if you know to the contrary.

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, I'm not an atheist, but if Christianity were (without a doubt) true I'd have to read up more on what hell actually constitutes. I don't like the idea of eternal life, but if the only alternative is the eternal experience of effectively unbearable torment then it's kind of a no-brainer to me.

I agree. If Christianity were true, my first order of business would be to not only find out about Heaven and Hell, but to also find out which version of Christianity Christians preach about is true! (as I eluded to earlier, I get a feeling none of them would be completely true) I think one of the easiest ways of getting confused about Christianity is to listen to multiple Christians description of it; (sorta like the guy with 2 watches who will never know what time it is) There seems to be multiple versions such as:

*Some believe in the trinity, some don’t (I believe Christian Science fits that category amongst many others)
*Some believe all the stories of the Bible are literally true, some don’t
*Some believe in evolution; some don’t
*Some believe in eternal torture in Hell for non believers; some don’t

And the list goes on. But like I said I think my first order of business would be to find out which version is the truth, and make the most of whatever that is.


Ken

Nicki wrote:I answered yes to your question (in a roundabout way). We all want to know the truth and when it's undeniable to us we just have to face it.

I agree. If I recall correctly, there were several people who did answer my question, I believe you were one of them; then there were others playing “word games” and either not answering the question at all or they would answer a different question than the one I asked.

Nicki wrote:I don't think Christian Science is really Christianity - there are many denominations accepted by each other as mainstream Christianity but Christian Science is one of the belief systems outside that.

I have noticed some will say certain denominations are not “real” christian. I’ve even heard some claim that Catholics are not real christians; and they were the ones who started it all!
But from an atheist perspective, I just see a bunch of people pointing fingers saying “we’re right, they’re wrong” which is why if it were proven to me that Christianity were the truth, I would have to first find out who (if any of them) is right


Ken

.

Kenny,

All that secondary stuff like evolution, if all biblical stories are literally true, a literal hell, etc., are all secondary issues that Christians are free to disagree on. Those issues are not salvation issues.

All Christians believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in who he claimed to be, God in the flesh, and we trust his sacrifice was efficacious for salvation.

Jesus Christ is Christianity. None of the secondary issues matter when all is done. Either you trust in Jesus Christ, or you don't. It's as simple as that.

RickD wrote:Kenny,

All that secondary stuff like evolution, if all biblical stories are literally true, a literal hell, etc., are all secondary issues that Christians are free to disagree on. Those issues are not salvation issues.

All Christians believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in who he claimed to be, God in the flesh, and we trust his sacrifice was efficacious for salvation.

Jesus Christ is Christianity. None of the secondary issues matter when all is done. Either you trust in Jesus Christ, or you don't. It's as simple as that.

Good point. That would have to be the first order of business, working out the details would have to become secondary.

K

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny needs to realize that he cannot bring up other god's anyway when it comes to Pascal's Wager instead he must consider heaven/hell vs We just die and thats it,which is what atheists believe so based on this Kenny cannot ask what would we do if we were wrong because if we were wrong we would not even know or realize we believed in Jesus and were wrong but if Kenny is wrong he is in trouble.A person just cannot hedge their bets with atheism at all and atheism has no evidence behind it,even false religions have more evidence than atheism does.Pascal was a gambling man and knew about odds of winning.

Wrong. Pascal's Wager is supposed to look at things from the Atheist POV which sees all religions as equally flawed, not the Christians who only see their religion as authentic. Thus your argument fails.

Ken

We can apply Pascal's wager to false religions and atheism,atheists believe there is no god,no afterlife and when you die,thats it.Atheists cannot bring up other god's they don't even believe in.This means if you are wrong,you are in trouble.Religions can debate and compare evidence to know which God is true,atheists cannot do this as they believe there is no afterlife and don't know about god's and religions.I can say to you that I win no matter what whether Christianity is true or not,but you lose if you are wrong.

plouiswork wrote:This counterargument so far is a bit confusing. It sounds like the "you" in this question is being assumed to be plural by the answerers but singular by the questioner. It's trivially true that theism would still exist if others didn't have this knowledge, yet equally trivial that it would not if it were defacto knowledge by everyone. But the question doesn't really have the same implications as the original (can't well believe if you (singular or plural) know to the contrary), so I'm not sure why it's being asked.

Anyway, I'm not an atheist, but if Christianity were (without a doubt) true I'd have to read up more on what hell actually constitutes. I don't like the idea of eternal life, but if the only alternative is the eternal experience of effectively unbearable torment then it's kind of a no-brainer to me. I never really liked the idea of Pascal's Wager, as it seemed like an incredibly vacuous basis on which to define oneself, but I've experienced enough pain and horror to know I'd only last so long under torture before losing any shred of personal dignity.

Moreover, if Christianity *is* defacto true, and hell is a sort of non-choice (i.e. obviously undesireable) then, as God is now proven to be good, the only motive I could see for choosing the alternative is holding onto grudge/spite/hatred. Which was only acquired during one's relatively short life under the imperfect understanding of these (perceived) wrongs done. I can understand the sentiment of it being a begrudged conversion at first, but unless I'm misunderstanding what hell we'd be assuming to be true I don't even see how one could choose to deny God at that point without being delusional or having no experience with or concept of what they're really asking for (i.e. very sheltered life).

You can make that choice but you are just basing your rebellion against authority,running fromGod and the idea of justice just because you imagine in your human intellect that eternal life would not be good,overlooking that we all will live forever,I meanour flesh will return to dust butour soul lives forever,either in heaven or hell,now you can try to imagine how boring or wrong eternal life would be using your reason but for me eternal life in heaven is a no-brainer.
Fly away from hell
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B76oCk96q6o