True Religion

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Post Reply
ninjapotato
Newbie Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:41 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

True Religion

#1

Post by ninjapotato » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:35 pm

I've heard skeptics ask this several times, "What makes your religion correct?"

I've read the all religions lead to god post already http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... gions.html though it's not entirely convincing. I agree with the eternal creator part, however what about all the other religions (extinct or still practiced) that have an eternal creator(s)? The page covered Muslim belief, though not too many others.

On that note, what makes polytheism nonviable?

Thanks :P

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: True Religion

#2

Post by Gman » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:38 pm

ninjapotato wrote:I've heard skeptics ask this several times, "What makes your religion correct?"

I've read the all religions lead to god post already http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... gions.html though it's not entirely convincing. I agree with the eternal creator part, however what about all the other religions (extinct or still practiced) that have an eternal creator(s)? The page covered Muslim belief, though not too many others.

On that note, what makes polytheism nonviable?

Thanks :P
Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this religious prediction.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

smiley
Established Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:27 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: True Religion

#3

Post by smiley » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:29 am

I know I am going to get accused of sounding like an atheist again, but. . .

That article is so blitheringly stupid. "God rarely breaks His natural laws. Therefore, I propose that God would also not tolerate having His moral laws broken so easily".

:roll: This, this is just amazing.
"Imagine if we picked the wrong god. Every time we go to church, we're just make him madder and madder." - Homer Simpson

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

Re: True Religion

#4

Post by Byblos » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:05 am

smiley wrote:I know I am going to get accused of sounding like an atheist again, but. . .
No, we'll reserve that judgment until you actually prove it. :wink:
smiley wrote:That article is so blitheringly stupid. "God rarely breaks His natural laws. Therefore, I propose that God would also not tolerate having His moral laws broken so easily".

:roll: This, this is just amazing.
Please explain why you find it so amazing.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

ninjapotato
Newbie Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:41 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: True Religion

#5

Post by ninjapotato » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:29 pm

smiley wrote:I know I am going to get accused of sounding like an atheist again, but. . .

That article is so blitheringly stupid. "God rarely breaks His natural laws. Therefore, I propose that God would also not tolerate having His moral laws broken so easily".

:roll: This, this is just amazing.
I don't see what's wrong with God breaking the rules he sets for his creation. A father can tell his 12 year old son not to drink and still have a glass of wine with his wife without being a "blitheringly stupid" parent. This is so because they are not the same level (at the time anyway)

smiley
Established Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:27 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: True Religion

#6

Post by smiley » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:03 am

Byblos wrote: Please explain why you find it so amazing.
Because it's a textbook leap in logic. There is no correlation between natural and moral laws, and the fact that God does not break the former is absolutely irrelevant as to how tolerant He will be to humans breaking the latter.

The article is full of similar, embarrassing blunders that anyone who does not blindly accept pro-Christianity arguments should be able to spot easily.
ninjapotato wrote: I don't see what's wrong with God breaking the rules he sets for his creation. A father can tell his 12 year old son not to drink and still have a glass of wine with his wife without being a "blitheringly stupid" parent. This is so because they are not the same level (at the time anyway)
No, you've missed my point. The charge was not against the way God operates, but about the nature of logic that was implemented in the argument.
"Imagine if we picked the wrong god. Every time we go to church, we're just make him madder and madder." - Homer Simpson

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

Re: True Religion

#7

Post by Byblos » Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:04 am

smiley wrote:
Byblos wrote: Please explain why you find it so amazing.
Because it's a textbook leap in logic.
I read it more as a writer's opinion but in any case, please provide the logical proof for such a conclusion. I'm not saying I disagree with it necessarily. I'd just like to see on what basis you come to that conclusion.
smiley wrote: There is no correlation between natural and moral laws, and the fact that God does not break the former is absolutely irrelevant as to how tolerant He will be to humans breaking the latter.
Do you believe God can change?
smiley wrote:The article is full of similar, embarrassing blunders that anyone who does not blindly accept pro-Christianity arguments should be able to spot easily.
Please state them one by one.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Post Reply