LordReed:


Quite true, we have no evidence for how the universe began but how it operates has been observed to be by natural processes and extrapolating to the beginning gives that inference.

You on the other hand have nothing in the way of evidence for your god.

Well, your natural processes is one more evidence.

joseph1013:


What is moral law? Who created it?

Merriam-webster: moral law is a general rule of right living especially such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason.

joseph1013:
Isn't the uniqueness of Christianity an argument for its validity? I'm not having this discussion for discussion sake. It's all targeted towards making you tell us why Christianity is true.

No sir, uniqueness does not mean validity. I wonder where you got that from. Something can be unique without it being valid or credible or authentic or even good. Check definition of unique.

By the way, I said this

9inches:
Got it.

Truth by its very nature is exclusive. If it is true, as Christianity claims, that Jesus was crucified, died and rose again -- that it is not true as islam claims, that Jesus never died in the first place, and that somebody else was killed in his place... both claims cannot be true.

and you mischaracterized my statements and accused me of fallacy

joseph1013:


You are being fallacious.

Your argument is akin to this conversation:

John: I am my father's son

Joseph: How do you know?

John: My father told me.

It's called a circular argument.

Jesus died and was crucified. Who told you that? The Bible did. See?

joseph1013:
See...you realize that Islam and Christianity agree on certain aspects. They are both Abrahamic religions. They both recognize the Old Testament. Of course, they both disagree. Even Christianity is not singular. These are about 3000 denominations in Christianity, so this exclusivity you intend to give yourself has no validity.

Way more than 3000; it's about 33,000 and counting although a lot of them believe precisely the same thing. But even if, let's say, they account for 3000 different beliefs, those differences matter a whole lot, more so, if those are fundamental differences. Like I previously said, every belief system has some good in it; some have more, some have less. But the whole point here is that you should not equivocate different contradicting belief systems even if they share some similarities or have some good in it. It's a postmodern moral relativist and nonsensical thing to do.

That's the point. The claim is that that's what makes the religion unique.

Time to check the meaning of the word "unique".

When I ask for proof of Christianity, offering me absurd statements of Christ does not qualify as proof. Other religions offer some absurd claims too.
When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.
Offering me claims I can make doesn't cut it.

Remember this? Now read the highlighted again.

9inches:
You can use the following three tests to ascertain what the truth really is:

1. Correspondence theory
2. Coherence theory
3. Explanatory power

Correspondence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe, or what you've placed your trust in, does it correspond to reality? Does it have factual evidence to back it up." For instance, if I were to say to you "last night Manchester United won the football game", that statement is true if and only if Manchester United actually won the football game. That is the Correspondence theory - what I believe must correspond to factual evidence.

Coherence theory asks the question, "look, what you believe or what you've placed your trust in, does it cohere - is there a high degree of internal consistency?" Let's say, you and I we're talking and you say "hey, I just found out you had a new baby boy, is that right?" And I say to you with much enthusiasm "yes, we do and we are so pleased." Then another friend comes in and says "congrats man, I just heard that you have a son" And I say no no no, who told you that?" Now, you're going to look at me and be like "hold on, which is it?" As you already know, both can't be true because there's a contradiction there - there isn't coherence.

Explanatory power simply asks the question "does what I believe or what I've placed my trust in help me make sense of my observations of the world and also my longings and the desires that I have?" The observations that I have of the world - that the world is not the way it ought to be; there are many things wrong with the world. And then, my longing for significance - to matter; my observation that deep down I know I'm capable of doing great things but at the same time I'm deeply flawed.

The question then becomes, "what faith, system of belief or worldview best explains these observations and these longings?

The original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors.

LordReed:


We know no such thing. What we have evidence for is that the universe is a result of natural processes, we have no evidence of universe creating beings.

Oo boy! There's no evidence that the universe began with "natural processes". Natural processes have origin, mr scientist.

Zodiac61:


On a serious note, you are guilty of the things you accusenothers of. You say the gods of Greek and Roman (and indeed, gods generally) of mythology have been eliminated by science. But you exclude the Christian God. Why? Is there any stronger evidence for it than any other God?

Do you know about ancient Greek and Roman myths? What do you know about their belief in gods?

Do you say that the Islamic God or the Hindu gods have likewise been eliminated? I bet you will. Seems like special pleading to me.

No, but do you want me to say that for you, solely to help you make your argument? Just ask and it could be done!

As I said, your evidence for god is intuition. Well, I intuit that there are small fairies living behind my house. I never see them, but I know they are there. When I talk to them, they don't talk back, but I know they hear me and answer my prayers. The other day I lost my car keys and I prayed to them and found them. You see what I have done there. No different from what you do. Yet you will no doubt say I am crazy, if I truly believed that nonsense.

I see what you've done. It's called a straw man argument. You didn't get this type of hallucinations from any of my statements so far. Refer to my actual argument about God. But hey, you have your right to make up stuff that I never said. It cute. Again, bavo!

The moment you start talking about Authentic Religion, you begin to lose the argument. What is "authentic religion"? Who defines what that even means? Who are you to claim that your religion is more authentic than someone else's? How much arrogance is contained in that phrase "authentic religion"?

Objectivity does! Truth is absolute; it does not matter what any side is claiming. Truth doesn't change itself to accommodate your claim or my claim. And because it is absolute, only one of two or more contradicting truth claims will be true. If two or more people have contradicting claims, only one of them would be right. All of them could be wrong though but not more than one would be right.

Use your dictionary to check what authentic means. Here's not the place for such.

Arrogance is fine by me, as long as it doesn't hurt truth. Every religion makes exclusive claims as to why theirs is the one, the correct way. Are you such a snowflake that an exclusive claim triggers you?

When I accused you of a "God of the gaps" argument, you accused me of making a straw man argument. Guess What? You have done it again. You ask "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there realm of nature?" Legitimate questions to ask, but your answer is ...because God.

My friend, your thinking is seriously muddled.

God of the gaps argument is for scientifically illiterates. Those questions haven't been touched by science let alone answering them. Science does not answer the question of "why", go and check!
Now we know whose thinking is seriously muddled.

Zodiac61:


On a serious note, you are guilty of the things you accusenothers of. You say the gods of Greek and Roman (and indeed, gods generally) of mythology have been eliminated by science. But you exclude the Christian God. Why? Is there any stronger evidence for it than any other God?

Do you know about ancient Greek and Roman myths? What do you know about their belief in gods?

Do you say that the Islamic God or the Hindu gods have likewise been eliminated? I bet you will. Seems like special pleading to me.

No, but do you want me to say that for you, solely to help you make your argument? Just ask and it could be done!

As I said, your evidence for god is intuition. Well, I intuit that there are small fairies living behind my house. I never see them, but I know they are there. When I talk to them, they don't talk back, but I know they hear me and answer my prayers. The other day I lost my car keys and I prayed to them and found them. You see what I have done there. No different from what you do. Yet you will no doubt say I am crazy, if I truly believed that nonsense.[quote]I see what you've done. It's called a straw man argument. You didn't get this type of hallucinations from any of my statements so far. Refer to my actual argument about God. But hey, you have your right to make up stuff that I never said. It cute. Again, bavo!

The moment you start talking about Authentic Religion, you begin to lose the argument. What is "authentic religion"? Who defines what that even means? Who are you to claim that your religion is more authentic than someone else's? How much arrogance is contained in that phrase "authentic religion"?

When I accused you of a "God of the gaps" argument, you accused me of making a straw man argument. Guess What? You have done it again. You ask "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there realm of nature?" Legitimate questions to ask, but your answer is ...because God.

My friend, your thinking is seriously muddled.

joseph1013:


Which other law are you referring to? Spiritual law?

Moral law.

LordReed:


You present no evidence so where was the intuition supposed to end?

The reality of an endless appeal to contingent causes is one of them. We know with utmost certainty that there is a nexus/creator/originator for contingent things including what we see and touch.

Do you agree the following is a true statement, [b]"anything that has a beginning cannot create itself"?

Do you also agree that the "creator of anything with a beginning cannot have a beginning itself"?

Zodiac61:


Others have said it - you need to try harder. What I read from you is word salad.
No matter what you say, your God is the theist God.
Mumbo jumbo does not turn superstitious beliefs into reality.
Your idea of reality is ... intuition!!!!
If I was a believer, I would say "God help us from confused people like you".

Brilliant argument. Bravo! You demolished my argument. Congratulations bro.

Next.

joseph1013:
You are being fallacious.

Your argument is akin to this conversation:

John: I am my father's son

Joseph: How do you know?

John: My father told me.

It's called a circular argument.

Jesus died and was crucified. Who told you that? The Bible did. See?

Pardon, what did you think my argument was there? What's your understanding of the word "If"?

Again, you are being fallacious.

Claiming Christianity is true because of the claims of Jesus is nothing short of nonsensical.

Take any religion in the world, and I will show you what makes them unique.

Where did I claim Christianity is true from the quote? You're attacking a straw man now. Not good

Mohammed in Islam claims he is the final prophet sent from God. He recognized Jesus and what he has to say, but claims his prophethood is final and complete — no messenger will come after him.

Right. So what do you mean by "he recognized Jesus and what he has to say"? Do you think that according to the Christian claim of who Jesus says he is and what he taught...that both religions agree? See, I was pointing out the biggest (fundamental) difference between both faiths to dispel any argument of different religions being true. I even used the law of contradiction, that shows what my argument was - the differences, not the validity of the claims.

Buddhists claim Buddhism is the most unique religion to have ever existed. They say unlike the barbaric Abrahamic God, there is no almighty God in Buddhism, no one to hand out rewards and punishments. They claim that while all religions teach some forms or variations of stabilizing/single-pointedness meditation, only Buddhism emphasizes Vipassana (Insight) meditation as a powerful tool to assist one in seeking liberation/enlightenment.

Boom! You just helped me with another difference! Now can any rational person say both are equally valid and that their exclusive claims are both true? Of course not! Again, apply law of non contradiction - it's either the Christian claim is false and the Buddhist is the truth or vice versa. Both claims can also both be false but they CANNOT both be true. Do you understand that now?

I have heard a Hindu say that asking about the uniqueness of Hinduism would be belittling its profundity. He says Hinduism is unparalleled in breadth and depth of exploration, documentation and expression of a Godward aspiration, God-discovery, God-realisation and manifesting this Knowledge in life through art, poetry, scripture and simple life.

So you see, there is nothing special about the claims of Jesus. I can make much more absurd claims and start a movement. Does that mean my religion is the one and only because of that?

Christianity makes those exact claims too, nothing unique here.

Here's one of Jesus' outrageous (special) claims: (John 6:52-58)
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.'"

It's either he is a nutjob, as in, a wacko - a crazy lunatic or he's telling the truth. Do you think any religion accepts this claim? Do you still think Muhammad "recognized Jesus and what he has to say"? Mind you, the group of people Jesus was talking to in this passage all believed in God, yet they were shocked, even a lot of his disciples left him because of such statement.

You have not offered me any verifiable proof as to why Christianity is true. You can do better, right?

I asked what type of proof you are asking for. Well, Jesus as an individual, a human who walked this earth, died and resurrected... is verifiable. You weren't paying attention, I stated that previously. Go and check.

HellVictorinho:

You asked, "what is wrong about that?"

Yes, I ASKED.

HellVictorinho:

And what is a hole to you?

A hollow place in a solid body or surface.

joseph1013:


Okay. You believe murder is objectively evil. If a hired assassin comes to your abode, and while getting a vintage point to take you out, your gateman kills him, has your gateman committed a crime? Is your gateman done an evil deed?

Crime is a different conversation about secular law.

No, the gateman hasn't done an evil deed.

LordReed:


Interesting. You practically wanted to bite my head off for stating that your arguments were an appeal to intuition yet here you are stating it quite plainly.

Authentic religion often begins in this extraordinary experience of the contingency of the world; this deep sense intuition that the world exists although it doesn't have to exist.

You intuit when you consider or wonder about things especially things beyond natural. That's the point and "Begin" is the keyword here. Your intuition ends where evidence starts. Therefore, a conclusion from an evidential observation could not be said to be mere appeal to intuition; it's more than that.

I'm not against using intuition, as it provides us with our first experimental data or primary concepts/basic principles which are the primary elements and the foundation of every scientific and philosophical speculation. However, what I'm pushing back on is your attempt to make of intuition the central and fundamental element of our power of acquiring this sort of knowledge.

You seem to lack the nuance required for this type of discuss. Perhaps it's a waste of my work time explaining a bunch when you only conveniently use blanket statements to counter my argument instead of point by point constructive [counter] argument.

budaatum:


Have you considered trying harder? You might see more ds.

Yes I have.

Zodiac61:


Smokes and mirrors my friend, smokes and mirrors. This is a classic god of the gaps argument - we don't know what existed before time, therefore...God. Your apprach shuts down any intelligent enquiry. Why does something that exists outside of time not require an explanation? And why assume that that being, if it exists at all, is god?

Bandying scientific words about does not make your argument sensible or intelligent. In my view, it is intellectually dishonest to misuse terms with view to confuse the uninitiated.

It is amazing the slight of hand you have tried here. First, you appeal to the reasoning of children to buttress a point. Only in religion do we accept the innocent faith of children and magnify beyond what it is. Afterall, children believe in Santa Claus and the tooth Fairy. I an sure that you will not be holding those up as worthy, as they would not fit your narrative. In no other walk of life would you use the beliefs of children to support the unsupportable.

Secondly, I am sure that you did not read what you posted. Having said that belief in god is based on reason, you quote the cathechism, which makes it clear that your beliefs are based not on evidence or reason, but on faith.

As I said earlier, muddled thinking.

Jeez! Yet another god-of-the-gaps-plus-yeti-theory straw man! If you actually asked questions for clarification, you would not have embarrassed yourself this way thinking you are making counter argument.

God is a general term used to refer to what (people believe) exists before time and the universe and the source of every other creation. You are at liberty to use a different term. I understand the term "God" triggers folks like you but what else would you want me to use?

I wasn't making the god of the gaps argument at all. God is not "a thing" or "an individual" or some item within the natural world, rather God can be described as ipsum esse subsistens (the subsistent act of "to be" itself). God is that great ocean of existence from which the
world in its entirety comes, not something in the world that has to take worldly attributes for your sake just so you can understand.

This is different from god of the gaps of the ancient Greek and Roman myths or myths of any culture really. Those type of gods we can say legitimately have been indeed eliminated by the modern science. When atheists say the advancement of science pushes religion to retreats to ever smaller bits of intellectual turf, they they are talking about the god of the gaps, NOT the God christians and the likes talk about.

With our scientific equipment and our great scientific spirit scientists have explored the heavens and the mountaintops and the depths of the ocean and indeed haven't found supreme beings around, more to it the modern physical sciences have managed to explain most physical phenomena, so we don't have to appeal to extraneous causes of supernatural divine causes.

God is not some event or phenomena that can be examined by the physical sciences. He's not the subject or object of an experiment. Even in principle, the sciences can't eliminate God nor be able to address the question of God. The advancement of the sciences can never threaten authentic religion. That's why it's so silly for people to say "produce evidence" for God... You only do that for a Yeti theory, the "produce evidence for Big Foot" type of argument... You don't produce evidence like that for the creator of the entire universe. You don't use the scientific method to get at questions of God... it's simply a category mistake!

The true God

Authentic religion often begins in this extraordinary experience of the contingency of the world; this deep sense intuition that the world exists although it doesn't have to exist. Things are, but they don't have to be; they don't carry within themselves the reason for their own existence. Take a camera for example, it exists certainly but it did not exist through the power of its own essence; it exists because of a whole slew of engineers and designers and scientists. It exists because of its molecular structure, its atomic structure, its subatomic structure... If you take those away, there won't be any camera. The point is it's surrounded extrinsically and it's grounded intrinsically in all sorts of causes that bring it into being that allow it to be.

Now if you keep thinking in that direction, all the things I just mentioned all those designers and scientists and
technicians, all those lower levels of physical reality are themselves contingent - they don't contain within themselves the reason for their being. An endless appeal to contingent causes is not going to answer our question of why that camera exists. We know there is
some reality whose very nature is 'to be'. That infinite source of reality which grounds and gives rise to the whole nexus of conditioned things.

In church liturgy we say, "in you we live and move and have our being..." and that's the poetic expression of this philosophical
intuition... that's God! That's the true God - the non conditioned and non-contingent ground of contingency. In religious language, that's the creator of the heavens and the earth. You see again, that's the distinction between God and anything in the world, between the properly supernatural and anything within nature. It's why the sciences, try as they might, cannot even begin to address this question.

This is not any sort of magical thinking or superstition. Simply start by asking the really vital questions: why is there something rather than
nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there the realm of nature? Why is there the nexus of contingent things. That's the nursing question you should be asking, not trying in futility to score cheap argument points on nairaland.

HellVictorinho:

OK,it is not wrong to you now.

Quote where I said so.

HellVictorinho:
But,if an armed robber actually attacks you,such a question would be......
And,I know you won't say"you are welcome to rob me since there is nothing wrong about it."

Any armed robber is welcome to rob me.

HellVictorinho:

A hole is used to describe a depth from which something erupts/comes out/escapes.
And you described the universe as something that came out from God.

That's your definition of a hole. I have never heard that before.

You are making a straw man argument. Injecting your own argument so you can dismantle it. If you don't understand someone's argument, ask for clarification. It doesn't help you to veer off and derail.

budaatum:

So it does not exist, since it wasn't created?

Now you're making a circular argument. Attributing the nature of the created to the "uncreated".

HellVictorinho:

Because other persons might want to take it away from you.

And so what? What's wrong with that?

HellVictorinho:

You called the so-called origin of the world something ,the world,which you implied as everything,came out from, which makes it a hole.
Read this well,please.

I never made any "hole" argument.

LordReed:


Thanks for the clarification.

At your service!

HellVictorinho:

Google the first one.
You need laws to maintain your peace, at least for some minutes.

Why would a person need laws to maintain peace?

HellVictorinho:

If there was a time when only a thing(hole)existed, what was surrounding this hole from which your supposed everything came out?

Was there a time when only a hole existed?

HellVictorinho:

Have you heard of limitations to the freedom of human rights?
Rats don't have that intelligence which causes humans to question everything including themselves.

No, tell me about that.

So why then do we need laws to live our lives?

HellVictorinho:

Alright, I will explain.
Humans limit themselves in different ways.
'Making laws' is just one of those ways.
Without these limits,humans won't even be as organized as rats.

1. In what way is making laws limiting to human?
2. Do rats have laws, why do humans need laws? Why not live the rat way - lawless?

raphieMontella:


"becoming" man is logically impossible

Do you apply logic in everything you do in life?

raphieMontella:
from your house builder comparison...
you do not build a house and "become" a wall of stone to be able to enter the house..

the builder already has to have(as a part of himself) some properties or features pertaining to the dimension in which the house is being built in the first place, if not an interaction with the house is not possible..

as you said sha...its a different discussion..

I used simple examples to illustrate how God could exist outside the world but still be able to enter into the world. I don't think I went beyond that as I can't imagine an example one could use to fully explain what is beyond full comprehension like God.

9inches:
If you create a camera, you are not constrained by it but you can go inside of it and out at will. Same goes if you build a house, you are not constrained by it but you can move in and out at will.

budaatum:

So, you just threw it in despite it not meaning anything!?


I too do not dispute that there must have been something. And I'm not afraid of bottomless holes.

So, there is a universe. And according to you, all things are created by a creator of things. And since a creator of things is a thing in its on right, there must have been a creator of the creator of things. And if there was a creator of the creator things, there must have been a creator of the creator of the creator of things, and so on. At least, if it were true that, all things are created by a creator of things. That's sense to me. It will be nonsensical of me to try to avoid such a logical conclusion with an "Outside of time" that I go on to admit, "hasn't been revealed yet". If it hasn't been reveled yet, I'm likely to ask myself how I know of it to start with, "are you sure that you are not just making things up in your head buda", I would ask. If I can't find a meaning for it, I'd wonder why I would make such nonsense up in my head and claim it exists when I don't have a clue what I mean by it. And if I were trying to convince someone else of it, I'd definitely be asking myself if I was trying to make that someone else as stupid as I seem to be, talking about things that haven't been revealed yet and that have no meaning, but in all sincerity is just an attempt to avoid the obvious "bottomless hole" so as not to destabilise what I want to believe! And I'd definitely be wondering why I want to lead that someone else astray like I seem to be leading myself astray!

buda don't do sense that is common, I guess. buda would rather use buda brain!

Keep attacking that straw man, ma nigga. Keep on keeping on. There's no creator of the creator of things. The creator of things wasn't created. How hard is that to understand?

9inches:
The world didn't come out of nothing, it came out of something, and the 'origin' of the world wasn't created/evolved else it will exist in the world and become part of it, which would make the answers that we seek more likable to be obtained through science or otherwise here this world.

HellVictorinho:

Are you a lawyer/legal practitioner?
And,if murder was not a crime,do you think you would be alive today?

No, I'm not a lawyer. Which of the lawmakers you referred me to are lawyers? See, you don't need law degree to know the law. You would need it to deal with the technicalities of arguing the law in a court setting.

That being said, there's no secular law that explains its foundation entirely world over. Only the US Constitution as far as I know comes close to dabbling into that.

HellVictorinho:

Ask the lawmakers in your country's government.

Nothing in the law says where the idea of criminalizing murder came from. Is it safe to assume you don't know the answer.

joseph1013:

In terms of answers to question is fine.

I'm actually just interested in the verifiable proof you have to belief that Christianity is the one and only true religion.

Got it.

Truth by its very nature is exclusive. If it is true, as Christianity claims, that Jesus was crucified, died and rose again -- that it is not true as islam claims, that Jesus never died in the first place, and that somebody else was killed in his place... both claims cannot be true.

It's like asking why Jesus is the only way. Nobody else in history made the claims Jesus did. Nobody else claimed to be able to deal with the problem of the human heart like he did. Nobody else claimed as Jesus did to be "God with us!" So, whether you believe his claims or not, it's evident Jesus was utterly unique.

Note that christianity does not make the argument that other religions are totally false. That would be totally a false assertion. There is some good and truth in just about every other religion. If you apply the law of non contradiction - "A" and "B" cannot both be true at the same time. Either one of them is true or both are false.

So, now you know Christianity and islam could be said to be superficially similar but fundamentally different because they both make contradicting truth claims.

HellVictorinho:

Murder is a crime-fact.
"Good"/"Evil" are just words.

Why is murder a crime?