Does God have a future?..ABC nightline debate

I would agree that the existence of God is unfalsifiable. It is not like we can go and test it out and observe God.

However, we do have a historically reliable account of a man who raised another man (Lazarus) from the dead and then was raised from the dead himself (Jesus). Jesus then appeared to many people over a 40 day period to show the "evidence" of what had happened. In one instance, Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once. This is not reproduceable, but there were observations of this fact. I think resurrections are strong evidence for the God of the bible.
 
I think resurrections are strong evidence for the God of the bible.
--------------------------------------------------
Personaly, I have no problem with belief in God, but I have a big problem with religion because all religions are man-made and all think that their religion is the correct one.
 
Did Socrates believe in a god that suposedly impregnated a woman without biological possibility? It was and still is unreasonable to believe he did and it would have been and still is unreasonable for him to believe that particular story (the operative word being "reason"). Since that particular question or basically any questions relevant to christianity were not presented to him, his opinions are worthless. As a rhetorical question used only for the purpose of demonstrating a point, it is equally puzzling.

Help a simple person (me) out and explain why you think the example is probative of something. That science and our understanding of factual matters has evolved? That some things that can never really be examined scientifically should or should not be believed in?

Black holes are certainly not understood or empirically proven and, nevertheless, are widely accepted. But belief in them doesn't require the total suspension of reason, experience, logic and intellect.

It is truly ironic that humanity - that quality we so revere - only exists because of the intellect we possess and supposedly only possess by the grace of the god of which you speak and that said intellect demands that we laugh at this particular story of a god. In order to be truly human, we must abandon that quality which actually makes us human?

If that is truly what it is all about then I'll glady take hell before I kill my own humanity in my own mind simply because I'm afraid of eternal sleep.
 
I have found nothing less interesting than caring if there is a god. Maybe it was the way I was raised, or the way I'm wired. What is fascinating to me is how much time and energy people exude trying to prove one side or the other. I don't think the idea of a God is outlandish, I don't buy it, but that's not to say I'm right. I know I will never convince any person of faith otherwise, but more importantly, why would I want to? They're happy, I'm happy, why rain on his parade with my POV and vice versa. I don't see why god wouldn't have a future, **** Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't going anywhere.
 
well, if you are a bill maher type athiest who believes only a childs mind or moron could believe in a God then you would have to be intelligent enough to see the folly in evolution theory as well. the idea that we rose out of the mud through the process of random mutations is just as preposterous an idea. this is the problem with evolution theory. the human cell is too complex to have developed through random chance.
 
I have no idea if Socrates even heard about the existence of black holes.

The scrutiny of his belief in black holes would necessarily depend on the evidence before him. Also unknown.
 
Rickysun, although I believe in a God, I do agree with your perspective. If people are happy with their beliefs, and not infringing on the rights of others, then let them be. To each their own.
 
Nick,

You don’t like my little questions, do you? The answers you’ve so far avoided are very straightforward: No, Socrates had no reason to believe in the existence of black holes; and no, it wouldn’t have been ridiculous for him to believe in their existence.

But you're a bright guy; you didn’t need me to tell you that.

It seems to me that there is a kind of concession in your non-response. And it’s this concession: that there is a truth that exists beyond our reason. Many things existed in 400 BC that Socrates had no reason to believe in.

This seems like a pretty sound first principle from which to begin: truth is a larger concept than reason—Or, to say it differently, reason is contained within truth, but truth is not contained within reason. And this must be so, since the capacity to reason is necessarily limited by our powers of perception, and truth is not limited in this or any similar way. Do you agree with that proposition about the relationship between truth and reason?

Or do you wish to make the argument that nothing exists, and that nothing has existed or will exist, except those things that are within our powers of reason?

Or is there some other way to characterize that relationship?
 
I didn't dislike them, I just didn't see where you were going and they certainly aren't necessary to your point. I agree with the general statements about truth and reason, but they are not terribly relevant to what I thought I was discussing. There are differences between not even thinking about or suspecting something and having a question presented to you along with evidence and using reason to conclude that a theory is incorrect. If there is absolutely NO evidence to support a theory and there is plenty of evidence which does not support it, then it is unreasonable or "ridiculous" (which word I think you are probably taking from someone else's post) to believe it. The truth may ultimately prove the reasonable concluder wrong, but that really doesn't change whether or not the concluder was reasonable to make such a conclusion in the first place (also sort of in agreement with you).

I don't think you really care one way or the other, but I wasn't avoiding answering your questions. In fact, I thought I HAD answered them.

My point was and still is that the reasonableness of a conclusion depends upon what goes into the conclusion. Garbage in/garbage out. When the question is one of religion - any religion - they all depend upon us suspending our powers of reason. Now, I'm sure one can come up with some sort of exception that I would have to accept. To be perfectly candid, I just didn't want it to seem like I had a hardon for or against christianity.

I suppose there might actually be some sort of god, I don't really care one way or the other, but I will never for one single second believe that the christian "explanation" has even the slightest bit of merit. By its own terms it disproves its own account by averring the fallibility of man and our only inkling of the christian ideas come through men. Men with agendas.

For crying out loud the far right christians in Texas just rewrote history in our children's textbooks to exclude Thomas Jefferson from our country's history. Presumably because he screwed a black slave, but I really didn't pay much attention to the zealots "reasoning" (wry chuckle). English kings have been known to rewrite the bible itself and imperfect languages have been imperfectly translated. Should I go on?

Christianity is pretty much all about faith as I understand it and true faith in a "truth" only exists when reason tells you it shouldn't. THAT is what I was getting at with the comments about humanity and "god-given" intellect. He gave you intellect, but you only win his game when you don't use that gift.

No thanks.
 
Surely you have heard on the expression "on faith alone"? that's the practical aspect of faith I was referring to. Imo, it isn't "true faith" if it can be totally explained through reason.

I stand by my comments about the fallibility of man and his various "interpretations" of reality, whether it be christianity or evolution or having sex with that woman or the existence of weapons of mass destruction or people named Thomas Jefferson or that asian people are better at math or that people with black skin can't play quarterback or global warming or whether or not aggies like sheepsex or that OU SUX... ... ... ....
 
I find the idea that anyone knows whether or not there is a god to be unreasonable.

I didn't follow up on the textbook story. Which part is wrong? The fcat that they succeeded or the reasons I speculated they did it for.

Like Ricksrun, I have no desire to try to convert anyon'e thinking. I'll go one further. Not only should we tolerate their beliefs, we should fight for their right to their beliefs.

And we should keep any religious beliefs from being the subject of legislation (we HAVE a constitution) and nothing about our government ought to even imply that the government (or any part of it) accepts or rejects any religious point of view.

Just as an aside, with respect to Monahorns:

"The people of Jesus' day had faith in Jesus."

No. A handful of people did. More now.

"They saw Him and His miracles and heard His teaching."

So we are now told. Who knows what they saw or heard or the reality of their perceptions or recordings, if any.

"Their faith was based on evidence."

Pure speculation.

"Today we don't see Jesus but we can read a reliable historical account of Him."

Reliable? I have no way of judging that and neither does anyone else.

"We can then trust those accounts."

I don't and there is no logic in your statement.

"Again faith is based on evidence. It may not be evidence you find sufficient but it is evidence."

Belief may or may not be based upon evidence, but the accounts you are talking about only serve as evidence that someone had a pen and paper and knew how to write.

Sorry, but I have to go watch my kid play water polo. I have confidence that they are going to State and it's a reasonable belief because they are undefeated and playing the worst team in the region just to get the last seed at State. They might very well be one of 4 #1 seeds at State (4 regions).
 
One more thing. One of the previous posts included the word "you're" when it should have been "your". Man is fallible. Even when typing.
 
There’s been no effort to “exclude Thomas Jefferson from American history”. He was dropped from a list in one world history TEKS standard that dealt with European enlightenment philosophers. He remains a prominent fixture in the US history TEKS. Whether he should have been dropped from that list is debatable; but even so, that’s a far cry from “excluding Jefferson from American history.”

Is that the sort of disciplined thought that characterizes the use of reason?
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct"

sorry but science is not an assumption.
 
euguene,
science is NOT an assumption. I would agree with you there. Science does contain assumptions though. Just as religious belief, or belief in God is not an 'assumption', but it does contain assumptions...
And no, I do not equate science and belief in God. They are not the same, nor are they the enemies that many try to make them.
 
Umm, isn't beating a dead horse considered cruelty to animals?
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top