Why I am a Christian

[Aesir]

Atheism is the belief in no gods. Thats the only pre-req for the being an atheist; Don't believe in god? You're in!

Also unless i"m mistaken that link you just posted basically implies that since the chance of our existence is so greatly improbable on it own it had to have had a creator. Which really don't prove anything or disprove anything it's a shallow statement.

 

[yossarian22]

You seem to be going by the assumption that all atheists don't believe in naturalistic origin, when in fact many do.

Nope. I made no such claim at all.
I am not the one making a sweeping a generalization here.

Just because one atheist doesn't believe in naturalistic origin, it doesn't mean that another one can't. Remember, the main goal of the website is talking about science and god. It's goal isn't to cater to every single belief. Maybe they got atheism wrong from YOUR point of view. It's a simple fact that atheism can be viewed in several different ways, wikipedia tends to agree as well.

Yep, they address a single flavor of atheism.
Its not so much that they fail to have a working definition of atheism (the disbelief in god. That;s it. No naturalism and other cruft stuck to it), it is the fallacious nature of the site that causes me to dismiss it off hand. Its a massive false dichotomy.

Remember the websites goal isn't to cater to every single belief, but to talk about science and God. So it's natural ( don't mind the pun) that they would talk about naturalism. Perhaps they could have used better wording.

Naturalism is not a single set either.

Seems to me you misunderstand the website entirely. Also what's wrong with the website having a few opinions contrary to your own?

Because they posit their opinions as facts and use fallacious reasoning repeatedly.
I brought up other forms of atheism for a single reason: to highlight the nature of the site.
And the 'science' they use is also laughable and cherry picked.

As for the occams razor. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

If your one of those tldr guys, skip to proof 4. Though it's probably going to clash with some of your beliefs, but hey, your opinion right.

Yet another 'disproof' of Occam's razor.
William of Ockham is spinning in his tiny little grave.
For one thing, we need to accept the validity of an objective reality. This view is not incompatible with Christianity or most mainstream religions.
Occam's Razor is summed up quite nicely in my signature, albeit a bit awkwardly due to the translation.
Now that we have a core understanding of Occam's Razor, we can dive into their argument

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent God. A God which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in himself has his own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning.

For one thing, this is Occam's Razor misapplied. For one thing, the argument ultimately begs the question 'An all powerful god existing outside of the known universe' is hardly an acceptable premise. It's like making the premise of an argument "I am always correct".
Occam's Razor necessitates uncertainty.
So we have a piss poor example right here. But I am rambling.
For one thing, Occam's Razor stands in utter support of naturalism straight from the get go. Naturalism requires the fewest assumptions while still retaining greater predictive power. That last bit is very very very very important.
Empirically, we can show that a naturalistic world view has fewer assumptions, and therefore is more desirable. Now you can quibble at this argument, but it stands as a tough nut to crack. The only way around the argument is to suggest that god operates in naturalistic ways. The infamous 'God of the Gaps'

But there is another simpler way.
A universe appears.
There are two explanations. One posits a function within the universe that allows the universe to exist.
The other posits a God separate from the universe, who created it.
We apply Occam's razor here.
The mechanistic view requires fewer assumptions. as there is a girth of evidence for a naturalistic world view and for the supernatural explanation, not so much.
Even assuming there is an equal amount of evidence (a spurious claim at best), the mechanistic world view still wins, as it allows for predictions, while the supernatural flavor does not.

Religion needs to serve a purpose, or it is nothing more than a superfluous waste of time. This means that religion must be more than opinion. I will not judge you, but I will judge you belief systems.

edit:

Also unless i"m mistaken that link you just posted basically implies that since the chance of our existence is so greatly improbable on it own it had to have had a creator. Which really don't prove anything or disprove anything it's a shallow statement.

Yep. Its the Prosecutor's Fallacy.
I am interested though, in finding out how we determined the probability of our existence.

 

[Cubemario]

To be quite honest, I don't know enough about occam's razor. Someone else can take him up on what he's saying. I'm tired, it's late. To be honest, I don't really care about occam's razor. The only thing I can say is if Occam's Razor necessitates uncertainty like you say, then why even bother believing in such a thing in the first place. If it is uncertain, then you can use that as a shield for anything attempting to disprove it. The whole thing is pointless and accomplishes nothing.

Basically occam's razor says that we shouldn't over complicate things and the simple explanation is always the better one. Am I right about this? Is it just me or is creationism a lot more simple than naturalism is? Something like evolution for example is far more complicated that needs to be explained in great detail with many more theories attached to it in order for the concept to be REALLY understood. With creationism, a child could understand it. Mind you, it does have just as much depth (or more), but the main concept is quickly understood. So according to occam's razor, creationism makes more sense.

Either way, occam's razor is just a philosophy, and if the concept is so hard to grasp and can't be put simply, it isn't really worth exploring at all. It really has no basis in this discussion, it's just a belief that you happen to have, that in the end just doesn't matter. Besides, from my experience very few things in this world are simple, life is complicated and any normal person would agree.

EDIT: Oh and you keep saying the science they use is wrong and twisted to their side. What science are we talking about? There are many different kind of sciences. Is there supposed to be some kind of code among scientists that all of them follow? Can you give any examples? From what I understand science can be viewed and conducted in many different ways just like anything else can be. Man this april fools joke is really annoying, some things get lost in translation in some of our posts.

 

[yossarian22]

To be quite honest, I don't know enough about occam's razor. Someone else can take him up on what he's saying. I'm tired, it's late. To be honest, I don't really care about occam's razor. The only thing I can say is if Occam's Razor necessitates uncertainty like you say, then why even bother believing in such a thing in the first place. If it is uncertain, then you can use that as a shield for anything attempting to disprove it. The whole thing is pointless and accomplishes nothing.

It is not worthless because nothing is certain. Ever. Anybody who argues that is going to have a hell fo a time proving it.
We all see things through our subjective perceptions. So everything is uncertain.
So the world you see in front of you is purely subjective. So how can we be certain of anything? By suggesting inter-subjectively verifiable statements are objective truths.
But even then, we are basing truth off of mass acceptance of a principle. So we can't say something is fact. Something is evidenced.

Basically occam's razor says that we shouldn't over complicate things and the simple explanation is always the better one.

Nope. If Occam's Razor was just simple=better, it would hardly be of any use.
Predictive power is factored in by necessity.
The simplest theory that retains the greatest predictive power while making the fewest assumptions is the most valid theory

Am I right about this? Is it just me or is creationism a lot more simple than naturalism is?

Yes, it is much simpler than naturalism. It's just useless in predictions.

Either way, occam's razor is just a philosophy, and if the concept is so hard to grasp and can't be put simply, it isn't really worth exploring at all.

Everything is just philosophy. Occam's Razor is a logical principal. Its like causality. It has become a corner stone of logical inquiry.

It really has no basis in this discussion, it's just a belief that you happen to have, that in the end just doesn't matter. Besides, from my experience very few things in this world are simple, life is complicated and any normal person would agree.

I am more than willing to admit my belief in Occam's Razor, but that is besides the point. Occam's Razor is firmly rooted in empiricism, the scientific method, and logical reasoning. Hell, Occam just spelled out what we already had in common sense. That is all logic is in the end
And just because something is a belief, does not make debate impossible. It is more than possible to reach an impasse in a debate, but that is never due to mere opinion in a properly set up argument. Beliefs have to be justified, or they are fundamentally worthless.
And a great many of Christianities beliefs have become ancient baggage.

 

[Cubemario]

Okay, so I don't fully understand this philosophy. It's not making much sense. I've googled the thing, and I still can't understand it. It seems to have multiple definitions and none of them being clear.

"Principle that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred."
"A maxim stating an explanation should be based on a minimal number of assumptions."
"The notion that the simplest explanation of a problem is the preferred explanation, unless it is known to be wrong."
"the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred " ( I have NO idea what this means)

So basically from what little these definitions say. I can only conclude that occam's razor is the simplest explanation is the better one unless it's known to be wrong. If something is given an explanation it is also to be based upon little assumption.

Then you start talking about logic and predictions, which these definitions talk nothing about. You even say that what those defintions say isn't the real definition You've lost me completely. I don't even think you understand it yourself. Why can't this be put into simple wording? Every definition for it seems completely different to the other and some even contradict each other. Even complicated subjects like evolution can be put in simple wording and the general idea is grasped.

By the way, my beliefs are totally justified. Beliefs are formed by opinions, experiences, facts and faith. Just because another doesn't think those things justify it, it doesn't mean it isn't justified. Can I start talking to someone different now?

 

[Zero Beat]

By the way, my beliefs are totally justified. Beliefs are formed by opinions, experiences, facts and faith. Just because another doesn't think those things justify it, it doesn't mean it isn't justified. Can I start talking to someone different now?

I'll quote myself for the last time...

I find a fairly reasonable argument in favor of atheism to be "Look, almost everyone knows that, if you'd be born in a different place or in a different Stock, you would have been a muslim or a buddhist or a jew or a hindu. Is it really worth believing something you only believe because of accident of birth? Do you really believe you were so lucky to be born into a family with the truth, or do you think your parents' religion might not actually be substantially more or less truthful because they're your parents, than mine?"

Stupid word filters, I won't even bother....

 

[yossarian22]

Okay, so I don't fully understand this philosophy. It's not making much sense. I've googled the thing, and I still can't understand it. It seems to have multiple definitions and none of them being clear.

There is one flavor, phrased in different ways

"Principle that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred."

This is basically Occam's Razor

"A maxim stating an explanation should be based on a minimal number of assumptions."
"The notion that the simplest explanation of a problem is the preferred explanation, unless it is known to be wrong."

These two variants increase the application of Occam's Razor greatly, but have vaguer wording by necessity

"the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred " ( I have NO idea what this means)

There should be as few premises as possible.

So basically from what little these definitions say. I can only conclude that occam's razor is the simplest explanation is the better one unless it's known to be wrong. If something is given an explanation it is also to be based upon little assumption.

Not quite. The theory must offer the same value as others.
Occam's Razor does not care about the truth of a statement. It cares about how effective of a utility it is.
Newtonian gravity does not appear to be truth, but it still allows for predictions so Occam's Razor views it as a valuable tool.

Then you start talking about logic and predictions, which these definitions talk nothing about.

Exactly.
I am applying Occam's Razor by accepting it as a premise.
In my arguments, Occam's Razor assumed to be a truth.

You even say that what those defintions say isn't the real definition You've lost me completely.

Where did I say that, or even imply it?

I don't even think you understand it yourself. Why can't this be put into simple wording? Every definition for it seems completely different to the other and some even contradict each other. Even complicated subjects like evolution can be put in simple wording and the general idea is grasped.

They do not contradict each other at all.
Occam's Razor is quite explicitly 'All else equal, the simplest solution is the best'. All the variants you cited are this same principle rephrased in different ways.
I will explain my argument as explicitly and simplistically as possible.

By the way, my beliefs are totally justified. Beliefs are formed by opinions, experiences, facts and faith.

Belief should never be based off of opinion. It should be based off of purely rational thought.
And sure, I have faith. Everybody has faith in something. I just have faith in fewer things. That makes my beliefs intrinsically more adaptable and easier to defend. It also tends to make it more logically consistent

Just because another doesn't think those things justify it, it doesn't mean it isn't justified. Can I start talking to someone different now?

Nobody says you have to talk about me.
And I don't just think some of your beliefs are justified. I can show how some of your beliefs are not justified.

Opinions should stay out of world views, which is what religion and philosophy are. If we all just took the line of 'Well, belief is opinion so I can believe whatever I want' we wouldn't have a society at all.

But here is the summary of my argument.
Premises and their justifications
1. There is an objective reality.

Our experience is subjective, but our experience is the only thing that we know exists. This means that you either reject an objective reality (for instance, the monitor you see exists solely in your mind) or accept it ( for instance, the monitor you see actually exists outside of your mind). In all likelihood, you agree with the idea of objective reality as you are a Christian.

2. Objective reality is that which is inter-subjectively verifiable. A statement, which holds true, regardless of who observes, it is truth. 'Jack shot Jill' is an example of this. No matter how you viewed this event, you will agree with this statement.

If our experience is subjective, how can we determine what it true? Well, certain things seem to transcend subjectivity. Something that transcends subjectivity is inter-subjectively verifiable. The statement, 'Fred is 4 feet tall' is inter-subjectively verifiable. So in other words, truth is the same no matter how you view it.

3. Objective reality is consistent regardless of what time frame it is viewed in. Hydrogen will always react with Oxygen to form water at 25 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere of pressure.

This can be empirically demonstrated. Using empirical evidence as truth is justified by premises one and two and a consequence of accepting objective reality.
If you are unsatisfied with this, there is a better explanation, but it is needlessly complicated. I will summarize as simply as possible.

Time can be considered separate from our senses as a priori. In other words, our brain interprets our senses and adds the concept of time. So time is ultimately subjective. We want to be as objective as possible, and this involves removing subjectivity as much as possible. So we remove time as a factor as much as possible.

Many philosophies hinge on this--empirical skepticism for instance. It is from Immanuel Kant, so look him up if you are interested. His writing style is as interesting as a bag of rocks though.

4. Occam's Razor is taken as an absolute truth.

This is a necessary assumption, as without Occam's Razor, we must reject the idea of an objective reality. This is a fairly complicated argument, but I will try to simplify as best as I can. At worst, this premise can just be a plain, unjustified assumption due to its self evident nature. If you don't get this argument at all, just treat this premise as a matter of faith.

All we experience is subjective, so we, by accepting objective reality, we are forced to view objective reality as that which is inter-subjectively verifiable. Assumptions are not inter-subjectively verifiable, so we must reject as many assumptions as possible in order to attain true inter-subjectivity (or the truth)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, now that we have covered the premises and their justifications, we can move on to the argument.
These premises form the core of naturalism, or that the universe operates on natural principles. The removal of time leads to the scientific method as the most effective method of finding truth. We can reject supernatural concepts as there cannot be natural evidence for the supernatural. This means that the supernatural remains purely subjective and cannot be considered part of an objective reality. Combined with Occam's Razor, rejection of God and the supernatural.

This is a fairly rigorous belief system which is logically consistent (At the very least, there are no problems yet. This is, admittedly, a fairly new view of mine-- its about 8 months old-- so I may have a few kinks in it somewhere). Very few religions can make such a claim. There are some religions that are constructed as consistently, but they are a far cry from fundamentalist (literal interpretation) Christianity, Islam, Judaism and their ilk.

I'll quote myself for the last time...

How is that an argument for atheism?
Just replace the religions with atheism and you wind up with an argument against atheism.
It should not be surprising that we tend to believe the same things our parents do. It effects our world view. And the number of converts in religion tend to suggest that a significant number of theists change beliefs and do not blindly follow their parents

 

[Cubemario]

Ok, you've explained it well now. I get what your saying. There's no doubt about it that christians think differently from most of the world, we believe in the supernatural. The bible talks about a lot of things that most people are not familiar with as well. The most basic principle of christianity is faith. This is what the bible says faith is and an example of it in operation.

Hebrews 11:1-3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

According to those verses (and many others) the bible teaches that you must believe in something that you cannot see, and through a series of actions and confessions on your part, that thing you are believing for (if it is something that is permitted) comes to pass.

Most people will not believe in something unless they can experience it with their natural senses. The bible teaches us to not rely on our natural senses when it comes to the things of the supernatural. Which makes sense because the general definition of the supernatural is this.

Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"

That doesn't mean you cannot observe evidence of the supernatural however. The supernatural can be observed in the natural. There are several instances written in the bible where god intervened in the natural, the story of moses and the children of israel for example. There are also instances where God in his compassion for the sick or injured were healed. All of these things can be seen in the natural, but they are still supernatural as they bend/break the laws of nature. Miracles and healing still happen today in churches, gatherings, meetings etc. unfortunately they are not as common as they should be, but that is where the body of christ is held accountable (but I am getting ahead of myself, and straying off subject).

Ultimately, a lot of what christians believe is not logically consistent according to natural laws. They are however logically consistent according to supernatural laws. That is much of what the bible teaches us, how to logically operate in the supernatural in a godlike manner. The supernatural has laws just like the natural does, and they are just as predictable as "Hydrogen will always react with Oxygen to form water at 25 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere of pressure."

The sad thing is there is tons of deception when it comes to things surrounding christians and the bible. There are many denominations and many other things. Satan and his forces use these things to ruin a persons faith. Luckily God can help you navigate through this minefield. That is really a totally different subject all together though, so don't let this comment detract from my main point.

So in order to really understand christians and know that what we believe in isn't false , you must have faith and confess in Jesus dying on the cross and raising from the dead (something that cannot be observed in the natural today). You must also choose and confess to have Jesus as your Lord. Which is something that is a serious choice and commitment and will lead to a degree of suffering, which is why many people choose not to become involved and continue to live their lives how they please. The pro's far outweigh the 'cons' however. As a person grows in the faith and properly applies the many things that are taught in the bible to their lives, more evidence is revealed and the promises God speaks of are realized.

There is a great deal more to this then what i've said, but it's good to keep things simple. Which is why occam's razor makes a great deal of sense in that aspect.

There's no denying that the supernatural contradicts what many people were taught in their lives. Another way of looking at it is, the bible teaches that the supernatural overrides the natural, and the natural is just something that is there to serve man. The world teaches that nature gave birth to us, and we are to serve it. If a person chooses to believe what the bible teaches and apply it, is not my business. A person can reject it, ignore it,slander it etc. we have free will and god has invited us to something better. We can accept or decline his invitation.

I spent like an hour typing this out, I hope I made my point. I'm not really looking to debate this. This is just simply what christianity is. It's not something that should be observed through a telescope, you have to experience it and take part in it to understand that it is truth.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i could go on and on and on, but ill just say, the bible has never been disproven by science. advances in the science of asronomy and archaeology, have actually proven the bible correct on numerous occasion. so since i have my faith, it is up to you to prove that what i believe is wrong, and since in over 4000+ years, no one else has done it, than i doubt anyone here can either.

 

[yossarian22]

i could go on and on and on, but ill just say, the bible has never been disproven by science. advances in the science of asronomy and archaeology, have actually proven the bible correct on numerous occasion. so since i have my faith, it is up to you to prove that what i believe is wrong, and since in over 4000+ years, no one else has done it, than i doubt anyone here can either.

Is this some very delayed April Fool's gag?
The bible states that pi is exactly 3. The bible states that a man built a boat containing 2 of every single animals before the entire planet was covered in water. The bible pegs the creation of the world some 6000 years ago. The bible is as far as possible from being historically or scientifically accurate.

 

[MetaKnight'sSword]

Is this some very delayed April Fool's gag?
The bible states that pi is exactly 3. The bible states that a man built a boat containing 2 of every single animals before the entire planet was covered in water. The bible pegs the creation of the world some 6000 years ago. The bible is as far as possible from being historically or scientifically accurate.

wait......THE BIBLE STATED THAT PI IS EXACTLY THREE?!?!?! PI IS EQUAL TO 3?!?! When the hell did this happen?? OMFG

 

[Cubemario]

See post #208
See http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html
See http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
See http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/god_of_the_gaps.html

Now your up to speed. I don't really agree with everything those links say, and I haven't read all of it either. Just thought they may be interesting to read. Also what are you talking about historically inaccurate? Don't make statements without actually making some examples.

It's also really stupid when people take examples out of the bible like the flood, parting the sea, etc. to prove what the bible says isn't true, because WE can't do it. For some reason it's also popular among people to not include God in these events and say that a man or a group of people did it instead so it sounds stupid. It's also popular for people in these discussions to limit God to what were able to do. Sorry, we may be like God in many ways, but we aren't God. God is capable of many things we are not. If someone is going to argue the bible or God, they should at least have the respect to talk about the God in the bible. Not your own limited version of him.

To me, none of this stuff is that important. The general message is very clear, and we should be taking a look at the present and the future, not the past. A lot of the past is subjective and always changing (if you know what I mean).

 

[PitMasta]

Sooooooo many religions!!!

 

[yossarian22]

wait......THE BIBLE STATED THAT PI IS EXACTLY THREE?!?!?! PI IS EQUAL TO 3?!?! When the hell did this happen?? OMFG

Its 1 Kings 7:20-something.
23 or 24, I forget which.

Incidentally, a state actually did consider making pi 3. Late 1990s if I remember correctly. I am not referring to the APs April fool;s joke either.

And to cubemario, if god totally transcends our comprehension, then god is useless. You are simply rationalizing your beliefs, so there is little point in continuing this discussion.
I am not going to implicitly trust an obviously biased book's version of history, especially when that book conflicts with methodological naturalism.

 

[Cubemario]

I never said god transcends our comprehension at all, I just simply stated that he is capable of more than we are, please don't put words in my mouth. There's no rationalization going on here, i'm just telling it like it is because few christians are willing to.

I agree, no point in continuing this discussion when you refuse to read anything I post or link. If you refuse to look at any other viewpoints and keep looking at every single thing in a natural way, you will keep hitting dead ends. You believe in pure naturalism, I believe in something more. You think i'm wrong, and I think your wrong. Lets leave it at that.

EDIT: Oh and for the record http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Pi.html

 

[iankobe]

Its pointless from the beginning if people keep asking questions and not believing the truth.

You gotta know that if we put so much effort in finding the information just for the people that asks the question and not believing it, it is pointless.