Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why i am not a christian.
02-06-2009, 02:43 PM
Post: #1
Why i am not a christian.
ok so ive read bertrand russels philosphy speel ab out why hes not a christian and ive formed my only responses to it but i was curious what the christian response to this might be so...

give it a read Here
and post your ideas about it.

"Perhaps you've seen them only then you've just believed
And when they're fleeing then you feel you've been deceived
But in that feeling something ancient's been retrieved"
-Jack Hardy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2009, 04:22 PM
Post: #2
RE: Why i am not a christian.
So he doesn't believe in immortality and god, as well as jesus christ? Fine, that's all good and well, but what does he believe in?

Es gibt keine Korken in diesem Strom. Aber ich dachte zweifellos, dass es geben würde. Es dauerte mir Jahre, um diese einfache Wahrheit zu finden.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Post: #3
RE: Why i am not a christian.
Hmm, it was very interesting, and very well written; but many of its underlying premises were severely fallacious regarding history, philosophy, and logic.

So, my overall reaction: meh.

If you should see evident sins or defects, draw out of those thorns the rose; perceiving, moreover, that such apparent sinners may frequently have a good intention, for no one can judge the secrets of the heart of man.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2009, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2009 05:42 PM by JonathanT.)
Post: #4
RE: Why i am not a christian.
One of the questions I can answer without going into too much detail is the "First Cause Argument". I hear people all the time try to use the "who created God?" question as a shot against faith, but that question, in my opinion, has to do with the human inability to fathom the greatness of God's infinite nature.

Even if you don't believe in God, think about it like this: We are human beings in a finite universe; we are limited by space and time, and thus our ability to reason is also restricted by these two factors. God, being the creator of space and time, is in absolutely no way limited by them. "Why would a completely infinite entity even be required to have a first cause?" is the question I'd ask in response to Russell.

The problem comes in when we imperfect humans try to wrap our minds around this. As children many of us were, at one time, probably dared to 'count to infinity.' It is obviously impossible, even more so because we've designed computers that could run for centuries upon centuries and would fail to even conquer counting to 0.0000000000000001% of infinity! Trying to mentally grasp infinity is a failure in itself (and often causes headaches =p)

The question of "who created God" is simply a result of human reason hitting this impenitrable wall. If God has always existed, exists now and will always exist from now on, there is no point in asking that question. I believe this to be part of the leap of faith because it requires us, in some ways, to acknowledge a supernature that's completely different from our own. But if you place all your faith in human reason, it is easy to see "fallacy" in that argument.

I hope this answered one of your questions, or at least, one of the topics Russell mentioned in his article.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2009, 07:36 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2009 07:37 PM by B MAN.)
Post: #5
RE: Why i am not a christian.
(02-06-2009 02:43 PM)Urthred Wrote:  ok so ive read bertrand russels philosphy speel ab out why hes not a christian and ive formed my only responses to it but i was curious what the christian response to this might be so...

give it a read Here
and post your ideas about it.

sounds like little more than an attack on christianity and religion.... not that there's anything wrong with that. [yes, seinfeld reference]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2009, 05:00 AM
Post: #6
RE: Why i am not a christian.
sounds like little more than an attack on christianity..................................seems like you like attacking truth ,and what do you lot believe again,o thats correct you believe in yourselves.

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Post: #7
RE: Why i am not a christian.
(02-06-2009 05:41 PM)JonathanT Wrote:  One of the questions I can answer without going into too much detail is the "First Cause Argument". I hear people all the time try to use the "who created God?" question as a shot against faith, but that question, in my opinion, has to do with the human inability to fathom the greatness of God's infinite nature.

Even if you don't believe in God, think about it like this: We are human beings in a finite universe; we are limited by space and time, and thus our ability to reason is also restricted by these two factors. God, being the creator of space and time, is in absolutely no way limited by them. "Why would a completely infinite entity even be required to have a first cause?" is the question I'd ask in response to Russell.

The problem comes in when we imperfect humans try to wrap our minds around this. As children many of us were, at one time, probably dared to 'count to infinity.' It is obviously impossible, even more so because we've designed computers that could run for centuries upon centuries and would fail to even conquer counting to 0.0000000000000001% of infinity! Trying to mentally grasp infinity is a failure in itself (and often causes headaches =p)

The question of "who created God" is simply a result of human reason hitting this impenitrable wall. If God has always existed, exists now and will always exist from now on, there is no point in asking that question. I believe this to be part of the leap of faith because it requires us, in some ways, to acknowledge a supernature that's completely different from our own. But if you place all your faith in human reason, it is easy to see "fallacy" in that argument.

I hope this answered one of your questions, or at least, one of the topics Russell mentioned in his article.

In other words, you want a solid god, but science proves him impossible, so you declare god invincible and ignore all scientific arguments? That sounds like what you're doing here, at least to me.

Es gibt keine Korken in diesem Strom. Aber ich dachte zweifellos, dass es geben würde. Es dauerte mir Jahre, um diese einfache Wahrheit zu finden.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Post: #8
RE: Why i am not a christian.
(02-07-2009 05:00 AM)smellycat Wrote:  sounds like little more than an attack on christianity..................................seems like you like attacking truth ,and what do you lot believe again,o thats correct you believe in yourselves.

i haven't let myself down yet!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 01:48 AM
Post: #9
RE: Why i am not a christian.
Quote:In other words, you want a solid god, but science proves him impossible, so you declare god invincible and ignore all scientific arguments? That sounds like what you're doing here, at least to me.

Scientific arguments are strictly limited to what's natural. We don't know exactly what's beyond our natural universe. I didn't "declare" God invincible just to avoid scientific arguments, I took a leap of faith like many other science-loving Christians. Also, science has NOT proved God impossible beacuse of what I said earlier: science is strictly limited to what's natural. In other words, it can neither prove God nor disprove him - and that's where faith comes in.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 02:04 AM
Post: #10
RE: Why i am not a christian.
(02-15-2009 01:48 AM)JonathanT Wrote:  Scientific arguments are strictly limited to what's natural.

I'm having difficulty deciding how to respond. Technically, following semantics, you're right. Scientific arguments are concerned with what is natural. But that is only for a definition of natural that includes everything.

Scientific theory covers everything. Science should explain everything. Even if the law at work is "God did it," that should be allowed for. Science should ignore nothing. God still needs to fit facts, he needs to be logical and rational.

As I've said before, it is possible to believe in God and still agree with science. I just think it highly unlikely such a God exists, and I utterly reject any argument that says, "Well you can't use scientific methods when discussing God." Of course you can. The scientific method is all about observation and logical inference from that observation, which is the basics of how we discuss and think about everything.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)