this just shows how people are hellbent on beliving in god, they just have to beleive its too scary for them to wtness the world for what it really is, a hostile wolf eat wolf playground.
The biblical accounts can't be reliable because it's an ancient book that's been translated between many different languages numerous times by different people. Even the original versions can't be trusted, because those who wrote it can't be identified, and few of the important events mentioned in the bible are mentioned in other works of literature from that time.
Just because some random book with holy in the title says something doesn't make it true.
It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't.
The idea of that is not scary, it's just not true. I've entertained that thought in the past, particularly before I became a believer. Not until you study scripture and the Hebrew in those accounts do you really understand the historicity of the account.
@bberchin Well, I actually have. I have a degree in religious studies, and grew up in a church that believed literally in the bible. It wasn't until my early 30s that I began looking into things I'd never really had a good answer for that I started to doubt the literal account(s).
I still think there is room there for significant interpretation- especially considering the fact that in ancient civilizations this was what they did- they told stories.
Dang... the Richard Dawkins puppets are going after you dude. Lol, you make good points and they are just trying to defend their leader. Good job man.
@1BloodWolf87 This is why there is so much animosity. Puppets? Was that necessary? Perhaps some of us came to similar conclusions without the assistance of professor Dawkins.
Dawkins has said on numerous occasions that the concept of God is outside of science, and for that reason science is unconcerned with His existence.
Dawkins' own personal view is that God doesn't exist, but that is not a scientific statement, which he freely admits. He has also stated that he cannot rule out God's existence.
One thing we need to understand is that science is not in the business of proving things.
Science is in the business of studying the cosmos and everything in it and explaining it using hypotheses which progress to theories once they are founded on facts.
Science has NOTHING to do with god. If anybody claims that it does, then they are simply wrong and don't understand what science is.
Since you came back so reasonably I would be remiss not to assume you might be rational.
However, I have seen the type of objections people launch to Richard Dawkins and they are always poorly grounded in science or reason. So I assumed you have nothing new to say.
The thing is Richard Dawkins makes a flawless case. He keeps it ultra objective and based on the evidence. So I don't see how people can object to the facts.
Thank you for a reasonable response. I have nothing new to say- only refutations and thoughts. As for Richard Dawkins case- it is not flawless. I've seen him while interviewed contradict himself and seemingly make things up as he talks. His case is pop-philosophy and pop-science at best. He is only the latest fad in atheism... there will be others and no one brings anything new to the table.
You would be surprised at what I have seen from Theists in debates. Richard Dawkins could have publicly burned the bible and it wouldn't start to compensate for what I've seen. Pop science and Pop philosophy does not speak to the truth claims of its assertions. You use it as an insult as do many others but you do not exhibit the usual baggage that goes along with it. I would like to know what contradictions he has made publicly. Send me a PM
The problem is, Science has proven God does not exist in any form that science recognizes as reality. Thus God may as well not exist, because there is no interaction between God and Humans.
You chose to believe in one of many different belief systems that cannot be "proven" over a tool to understand reality. This is your problem, not mine.
Science is a tool for human understanding.. Your label that science is a god to some people, is proof of your insanity.
Yes, not believing in something can be a leap of faith. Not believing in Christ is a dangerous leap of faith which will lead to eternal torment if persisted in.
I understand why you think that way. That's fine. The double-talk comment, though, is your interpretation of my point and is either a misunderstanding of the point or just a twist to invalidate it.
Are you saying to be on the safe side we should believe in God or we'll be punished? But if God's all knowing he'll know I don't really believe in him. I can't believe in something by choice.
1st. no a leap of faith means you have to have faith in something. if you have no faith. then there is not leap. it's eponymous.
your religion takes a leap of faith. and atheism decides not to take that leap.
2nd. only an agnostic is unbiased. so don't preach this stuff that dawkins is biased when you are just as biased. if you weren't biased you wouldn't be saying things like if you persistently disbelieve christianity, you'll suffer eternal torment.
I never aid I wasn't biased. I know I am, but your statement above about atheists not taking a leap of faith is absurd. You're assuming God doesn't exist and have rejected all of the evidence to support His existence and rejecting the possibility of His exitence. Not only is that stupid, but it is also a leap of faith- you can't prove it and neither can I.
but it is not a leap of FAITH. i have no faith towards your god. i am unfaithful. therefore it's not a leap. if you're taking a leap, then i can't be against you and take the same leap.
the only reason you think i'm taking a leap, is because religion has been so engraved in society's head as completely fact, it's frowned upon to say it's fictitious. otherwise, you would be the only one marked as taking a leap of faith.
I know the feeling. I spend a fair time corresponding with atheists around here myself. It's a religion, the 'new atheism' is. And not one with any sort of depth either. It's usually parroting from The God Delusion. Stuff like, "Darwin made it intellectually plausible to be an atheist." Just silly stuff when you actually know a bit of history.
I love Tim Keller. He's an amazing speaker and writer. He and NT Wright and Ravi Zacharias are my favorite Christian thinkers. Keep up the good work!
God is infallible. This is what gets religion in trouble with Science because science is a process and not infallible.
Proof is a 2-way street, Religion claims to have the answer without proof.
Science has given an answer with some proof but it hasn't worked out all the details.
To insist your religion is still right because science doesn't know is very foolish and doesn't change the fact your religion has already failed to prove itself. Science will keep working til they figure it out.
Science discards religion as it can't be subjected to scientific testing; that may sound ridiculous, but unlike religion, science doesn't take anything (generally speaking) on trust or advisement, until it can be proven by means of examination logic of given law and deduction. There are scientists who teach evolution as proven, when in majority it isn't. That to me is irresponsible science, particularly as they attack Christianity for having no 'definite proof'. Proof is a 2-way street; show us.
Certain micro-aspects of evolutionary theories have been proven (eg. natural selection of Darwin's Galapagos finches); what's NOT been proved is the entire ape-midway-stage-man deal. If science can manage to ascertain that chain indefeasibly, it will destroy God from his very first premise; "in the beginning God". Despite this, I remain a creationist as no such evidence has been uncovered (Piltdown Man??) Science has to answer this: if God isn't the source of life, who or what WAS?. NO waffling
Although you raise a somewhat valid point, you do miss something.
Any well thought student of truth (science, knowledge in general) doesn't claim that science disproves the idea of supernatural forces. The main problem we have is that you have no real evidence for your claims (and before you claim that the Bible is proof, there is no good evidence to show that that is true).
All we ask is that you show evidence for your claims, but you can't. Science has evidence for it, which is why we choose..
I never claimed that science disproves the idea of supernatural forces, but rather it has no answer for miracles and usually concludes that they cannot exist because of that fact. What's more, if science does find an answer to a miracle in the way of explanation they seem to use that as proof that the miracle was not a miracle at all- another farce. Also, there is plenty of evidence for the scriptures and the content of scripture- you either don't know it or reject it as evidence.
Also I would like to add, if you want to believe in the Bible as the holy word of God without ever questioning it or thinking for yourself (religion does discourage independent thinking), thats fine as long as you keep it to yourself. Let it exist in your head. Please don't bring "Intelligent Design" in our public schools and brainwash our kids. Science class is for SCIENCE only
How arrogant and self flattering for you to assume a believer in GOD doesnt ever question or think for himself. Mans arrogance and pride is his greatest folly.
How arrogant and self-flattering for you to assume I was talking about God. Please, for the sake of your own intelligence, go back and read what I said. (I think it was something like, religion discourages independent thoought). Key word is religion. Not god. There's God, then there's man. Religion is the bureaucracy between man and God.
You're the one making a leap of faith by going AGAINST scientific reason to go on believing in miracles that were written by men before they even knew what a cell or molecule was. Through science, we know that a man can't live inside of a whale, it can't rain frogs, a sea can't be parted, and noah can't make an arc with 2 of every species (there are over 10,000 species of birds alone). So please explain how richard is making a leap of faith when he has ALL the evidence on his side.
1st. I dont need a scientist to tell me I cant live in a whale and so on. I suggest you look for the definition of MIRACLE. 2nd It takes more FAITH to beleive in a system that is constantly evolving. Whats truth for science today is "not-so-true"tommorow. Impeccable history of changing its mind. 3rd Read the Bible. It doesnt say 2 of every SPECIES. It says 2 of every kind.
What are you talking about? You strike me as someone who knows very little on the subject and who has read none of the positions against your own. I understand what a miracle is, but how is it a leap of faith for me to believe them to be impossible when I have all the scientific evidence to support it? Science is not "constantly evolving", we have a very good understanding of how the world works and the evidence is further piling on..not sure how that is "evolving."
Also, "Whats truth for science today is "not-so-true"tommorow. Impeccable history of changing its mind"
Really? Care to share any examples? Have you ever bothered to read a science textbook? Evolution isnt some crackpot theory, your nuts if you DONT believe in it.
Also, you make an absurd claim that richard dawkins is somehow making a leap of faith when assuming no miracles ever occured. Uhh, lets define leap of faith, shall we? A leap of faith is when you go on believing in something despite a lack of evidence for it. Dawkins believes there were no miracles. HE HAS ALL THE EVIDENCE HE NEEDS (its called science) TO KNOW THAT NONE OCCURRED.
Leap of faith as in believing we come from monkeys when theres no proof? Leap of faith in 1st there was nothing...then IT blew up? Again LETS DEFINE MIRACLE. And NO science has not PROVEN miracles DONT exist. Your problem isnt that you cant grasp miracles its you cant grasp GOD.
You are an idiot. How can you say there's no proof for evolution? Im not sure if oyu are ignorant or just plain stupid. There are 2 explanations for how we got here: The one AGREED UPON BY EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD, and then there's the one WITH THE NAKED LADY AND THE TALKING SNAKE. One of them has some evidence, the other one relies solely on the tiny brains of morons like you.
Name-calling? Come on, bballa0209. You seem to be a hot-head who is more interested in the adverserial process rather then getting at the truth. You are entitled to your opinions and you are entitled to share whatever facts you think relevant, but please be grown-up about it or I will have to remove your comments and block you. Thanks.
Cmon man. There's opinion and then there's facts. When pinkyhands dismisses scientific theory as lacking evidence, that's just embarassing. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm just calling people out who reject science because it doesn't correspond with their personal beliefs that they were taught when they were a young child. It's incredibly arrogant and its also dangerous.
Ok...I didn't know this was group therapy, I won't call names if you don't want me to. But I'll tell you what I think is childish..believing stories written in an unreliable book are more credible than scientific evidence. Why don't you say anything about pinkyhands and his childsish claim that we "came from monkeys and there's no proof"? Maybe if he would take some time to actually read about the theory of evolution he might learn some things and then we could have an intelligent conversation
To quote you: "Science is very important. But it is not going to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the claims of the scriptures..."
Actually, science ALREADY HAS DISPROVED claims of the scriptures. In the Bible, it says that the earth is flat (its actually round if you take a close look at a globe). You seem to be demonizing the scientific community but you lack the very perspective in which you seek. I'm still waiting to hear your evidence that the bible is the word of god....
Im afraid you're the one who is biased. You seem to group all scientists together as atheists and close-minded, when really you need to keep more of an open mind. You posted earlier that the bible is the "infallible word of God." Well HOW DO YOU KNOW? This is why no scientist can take you seriously, because you fall within certainty of outrageous claims that can't possibly be known to man.
God is infinite: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalm 19:1)
Imagine when telescopes weren't invented yet, and they wonder who or what put up the stars in the sky. Now in the 21st century with the invention of Hubble we are still wondering who or what brought about the countless galaxies in our universe.
Atheistic presupposition: Science is the only way to tell the truth.
Self-refuting claim: If that statement is absolutely true, then with what scientific method did scientists use to come up with that absolute truth?
Science requires observation of physical evidence; an infinite regression of the finite universe' "birth to death" sequence is impossible because evidence shows the universe has a beginning. Laws of Thermodynamics confirms that. Before that beginning cannot be "observed."
Don't understand why you quoted from the Bible rather than one of the numerous other mythological books. If you want to claim some special status for some specific mythology, you should establish it's credentials first.
You presuppose the Bible is a mythological book. It is not; it is the infallible word of God and defines my faith. Why would I use another text to validate my faith? That makes no sense.
Exactly, why use one of the many other religious books out there.. That is just totally ridiculous to even think that your book may be wrong. I mean faith in a Supreme Being is in your head anyway. The Bible is so ambiguous that you could make a case for anything and everything all at once. Great book.
Let me help you out here. Supernatural causes CANNOT exist - because if we observe something previously thought to be supernatural, it would no longer be so. It would then be natural and scientists would set about understanding it.
If you could present evidence that "miracles" took place, you would soon have the entire scientific community on your side - including I am sure, Dr. Dawkins.
But you know as well as I, that will never happen, right?
This is one of the most pathetic cases for religion, I have ever seen. Why is it a "leap of faith" to deny that which has never been proven, and which can never be demonstrated?
"It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist".
Are you actually arguing that science is obligated to prove the nonexistence of invisible, magical beings??
Why can't you accept the responsibility of proving that such a thing does exist?
Most genuine atheists do not claim god is totally non-existent. We make the point that the concept cannot be unequivocally disproved but propose that science, rational thinking and analysis of the "evidence" for god makes his existence very implausible.
"Claims of the scriptures and the truths that we know from the scriptures." You had it right the first time. The bible is myth! There might be some truths but they are grossly exaggerated. You live your life based on a bronze-aged story!
I cannot believe you don't understand or you are simply refuses to see the faults in your logic of phenomenon. It is quite evident that you know nothing about science and heavily rely on your faith base reasoning. ie. poof and therefore it is and will always be logic. I feel sorry for you.
I have, and based on their "teachings"... I think if they existed in the same time frame... MOSES, DAVID, JESUS, BUDDAH, MUHAMMAD, MAHAVIRA, ZARATHUSTRA, SHIVA, ABRAHAM, SOLOMON, TENSKWATAWA, KRISHNA, OSHO, ZEUS etc... THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD FRIENDS!!! OR VERY GOOD ENEMIES .... because they are so similar... love.. respect and peace!
it's just about broadening your mind. I've read all those "Ancient Scriptures" I mentioned before (Theravada, Mahayana, The Book of the Bible, The Principia Discorida, Daozang, The Avesta Collection, The Pyrgi Tablets, The Qu'ran, The Śruti, Svetambara, The Tanakh, The Orphic Poems, Dianetics, Kojiki, etc).... HAVE YOU??...
Since your argument is based on Dr. Tim Keller, I suggest you also read any of Salvador Freixedo early books. Being someone who served the Vatican, Jesus and "GOD" for more then 30 years... He gives you a great insight on what "normal" people don't know about what they believe in.... Another good one is Dr. Bart D. Erham's "Misquoting Jesus", just to show you how "divine" the scriptures are.
Before you criticize me or the books... just read them... you won't change your mind I'm sure, but...
An Atheist doesn't believe in any self proclaimed illuminated prophets, man made or man created GODS (ZEUS, APOLLO, KRISHNA, BUDDHA, OSIRIS, JESUS, MUHAMMAD, MOSES, MAHAVIR, MITHRA, HUITZILOPOCHTLI, AHURA MAZDA, HERMES, SHANGDI, NGAI, YAHVEH, etc.) or any "Ancient Scripture" (Theravada, Mahayana, The Book of the Bible, The Principia Discorida, Daozang, The Avesta Collection, The Pyrgi Tablets, The Qu'ran, The Śruti, Svetambara, The Tanakh, The Orphic Poems, Dianetics, Kojiki, etc.)
This is all based on the God of the Gaps fallacy...because we can't explain certain phenomenon, God did it! In all actuality, if there were logical evidence pointing to a god, science would support it. Because a complicated universe doesn't logically point to a 'creator', science does not point to it.
>"It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others- that's good science. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist."
Only problem is, science does not do this and no one insists that it does.
Mr. Keller has constructed a fabulous strawman, and you are doing a fabulous job kicking the stuffing out of it.
"Only problem is, science does not do this and no one insists that it does."- So, you don't pay any attention to Richard Dawkins and the claims atheists make to discount the existence of God?
Dawkins makes a personal choice not to believe in God. He repeats this all the time. He does so because there isn't one scintilla of evidence that he exists. There is nothing that explicitly says he DOESN'T exist either, which is why he makes that choice. He's probably right, and he knows it.
I'm sorry but examples of healing like the one you gave are no proof at all. There could be any number of things going on here....misdiagnosis, selective memory, exageration or yes, even lying. Drs often have no explination for things, it means nothing. Examples like the one you gave happen all the time but note they happen to people of all faiths & athiests & downright bad people too.
To continue my point; people often claim god cured someones cancer. Yet he never seems to make limbs grow back. Could it be because cancer can go into remission naturally but severed limbs cant grow back naturally. I'll tell you this. If someone lost a leg in a car accident or something which then grew back fully formed and all this was properly documented I would instantly become a true believer. So would lots of other people. One true miracle, thats all we ask for. Why doesnt this ever happen?
"I would instantly become a true believer."- No you wouldn't. Christ brought a man back from the dead in front of many people and some of them still didn't believe.
"One true miracle, thats all we ask for."- God's providence does not happen on your terms and it is arrogant to expect that. Many miracles have happened and are happening- you just refuse to see it.
Forgive the snarkiness, but how is that any different from my perspective, than the crazy guy in the asylum seeing ghosts. He tells me they are flying through my head but that I refuse to see them? Why should I call him crazy and you divinely inspired?
You can't dismiss it simply by offering reasons why it might not have happened that way- you simply cannot and won't believe it. Also, miracles have nothing to do with what faith they belong to or how "good" or "bad" they are. Christians see the hand of God and everyone else ignores it and denies it.
You are right that science can't disprove the existence of god. This is because it is not testable, and hence not falsifiable. However, any hypothesis of a god who interferes and violates natural laws is both testable and falsifiable.
I agree with your first 2 statements, but I disagree with your last statement because it does not agree with your first statement. Science has not ruled out the possibility of anomaly or the manifestation of an unexpected and unexplainable natural phenomenon. You simply cannot, by science alone, rule out the possibility of miracles. Only by bias and presupposition can you do so.
"...I disagree with your last statement because it does not agree with your first statement."
Actually, it doesn't. The existence of a god is different from the existence of a god who violates natural laws. For instance, deists believe in a god, but that he doesn't interfere in everyday life. This hypothesis is not falsifiable, since there is no way to test it.
However, a god who violates natural laws can be tested. Victor Stengel wrote a book about this called "The god hypothesis."
God doesn't "violate" laws which He created. He is God and is free to use what He has created to carry out His perfect will. You speak as if you or someone else made up these laws you accuse God of violating.
Huh, are you kidding? Did god make the sun stand still for Joshua (which is stupid because obviously the earth would have stopped rotating)? Did Jesus walk on water? Did Paul raise the dead? Did Peter heal the lame man? Are people healed today?
"Did god make the sun stand still for Joshua"- Yes.
"Did Jesus walk on water?"- Yes.
"Did Paul raise the dead?"- I don't recall an account of that.
"Did Peter heal the lame man?"- No, God did through Peter.
"Are people healed today?"- Yes, but not through people. Healing was a foundational gift only given to the Apostles to establish the church. God does perform healing miracles which are unexplainable- my pastor is a perfect example.
My pastor was in a life-threatening accident about 35 years ago when a motorcycle hit him on a highway. It shattered his hip and he was laid up in the hospital for weeks with a host of injuries from the accident. His hip, which was to be replaced, healed overnight and the doctor had no explanation. His hip was shattered one day and the next day it was healthy and in one piece. That accident was the catalyst for my pastor going into the ministry.
So my pastor is a liar? Is that what you're saying? Or, he fixed it himself overnight? How about his hospital records and x-rays? That's not "documented proof"? You're a fool to say such a thing and you weren't a Christian- you were playing Christian. Watch my video "I'm a Former Chrsitian".
I don't know. I do know that memory is a very unreliable source, especially for events that occurred long ago.
"How about his hospital records and x-rays?"
This might constitute evidence. Do you have them?
"You're a fool to say such a thing and you weren't a Christian- you were playing Christian."
Hmmm, do you know me? Do you know my experiences? Trust me, I was a christian, but I left the faith. I have many reasons, but mainly god's true character.
bberchin; Why would his hip heal overnight and not the rest of his wounds?
It is a misdiagnosis plain & simple, Happen time &time again. It is always something that is hard to see. My mother lost a foot due to diabete no matter how many people pray for her (Same denomination as you) No one has ever had there limb grow back period, Thank you Yvan
You claim that god can violate natural laws. Like all science, we create a hypothesis and test it.
One hypothesis might be that god heals. We can then study this and check for evidence. These must be things which cannot be done through doctors or have a natural explanation (e.g amputees are a great example).
A 2nd hypothesis might be that god answers prayer. Do you believe in prayers? We can test this with group studies.
You can't test God and, besides, you've already skewed your little test by saying these things cannot be done through doctors or natural explanation. Your presupposition is that miracles are impossible and cannot exist so you are going to create a study which leads to that conclusion. Why not investigate the ones which have already happened? I gave you a perfect account of a miracle, but you rejected it. You didn't even begin your "study".
Come now you know from my other comments on this page that I have at least one other reason: conflicts of different religions whos followers exhibit the same level of conviction & the fact that you cant all be right. And believe you me I have plenty of other reasons too. No, with this comment I was simply proposing a reasonable alternative explanation for why the bible (and Koran) would have such verses. Let me ask you why do you think the Koran has such verses?
Every religion SHOULD have verses such as these if they wish to make the claims they make. However, personal conviction proves nothing. I had the same hang-up when I first became a Christian. Who's right?! The answer I got was that Christ is right and it made sense to me. From then on I devoted my time to studying Him and getting to know Him and have come to find out that my faith in Him is founded. I do not rely on my mind and that of others to prove anything- I rely on Christ.
I often wonder when people quote verses from the bible that say things like "fools wont believe & will mock but its still the truth" (forgive my paraphrasing). Don't they ever consider that maybe the men who wrote the bible said "hey guys this stuff is going to be pretty hard to swallow & its bound to get questioned...so lets put something in there to cover ourselves" Kind of like a preemptive strike against skepticism. Its really not that hard a scenario to imagine & seems very likely.
"I've never taken a bite of the religious bait"- Are you sure? We're pretty sneaky! ;) Also, man being by nature a religious being is always looking for something to believe in. Can you honestly say you don't believe in anything? I have no use for religion either, but I do find it absolutely necessary and joyful to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. You can call that religion, but the word religion comes with connotations which do not characterize true Christian faith.
I recognize some people like to make a distinction between organised religion and their own religious beliefs.
I don't agree that man is by nature 'religious'. I see religious thought as a reality-bypassing short-circuit in trying to understand the world. 'Seeking comprehension' I'll agree is in our nature so I'm just at odds with you about what is a valid way to seek truth. Ancient dogma aint it. I guess I 'believe' that evidence-based reasoning aka science is the best way to find answers.
No trick, but the belief in things which we know to be false and the expectation of people to believe things we know to be true by faith is confusing and very damaging; especially to children. My kids do not believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or anything like them. They DO believe in Christ and understand (at least as much as they can at this point) that the idea of Santa is folklore and Christ is real even without His physical presence to prove it.
Ok, so you don't like the science dismissing miricles because its never seen them to record and test them. Fine. You get your god to give us a miricle to study, and we'll get on it. As things sit, there are perfectly socialogical and psychological reasons for all the bibles contents, and most of it directly relates to a religious penis measuring contest. Study the anthropology of religions for a while, and you seem most religions follow the same pattern as yours. Christianity isn't special.
Richard Dawkins is obviously an idiot. Atheism shouldn't even be worth any of my time. Dawkins is just infamous for making these outragious claims that upset the theists. He doesn't deserve any attention.
I"m more of a Hitchens fan myself, while he may lack the diplomatic approach of Dawkins he more then makes up for in ruthlessness.
However, my personal beliefs on the subject are very much in tune with Dawkins, be it faith or reason a choice must be made.
As for miracles, they are by definition violations of natural laws, natural laws are unable to be broken thus miracles cannot exist within a finite physical existence governed by these laws.
Science has not ruled out the possibility of anomaly or the manifestation of an unexpected and unexplainable natural phenomenon. You simply cannot, by science alone, rule out the possibility of miracles. Only by bias and presupposition can you do so.
If we were talking hypothetics then you would be correct, however, the hypothetical simply does not translate into the physical world(at least in the context we are speaking of). Faith based claims are unverified for a reason, they simply cannot exist in a world governed by natural laws.
"Faith based claims are unverified for a reason, they simply cannot exist in a world governed by natural laws."- If they were physically verifiable then that would nullify faith. We would't need faith. Having the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen is a gift from God. Those who have not received the free gift can say that God and the claims of faith are unverifiable, but they cannot say we are delusional, cannot be scientists, and are wrong.
bberchin is running from his homosexuality and intelligent people (Athiests) who can figure it out.
I'm not shocked anymore that so many Americans believe in a fictional dictator who lives in the sky now that I've found out why and how it happens.
That's an alarmingly large amount of mentally disturbed people in one place though. Definately time to worry people!! Now we have the internet we can ALL see Americas most deepest darkest secret and something must be done NOW!!
Either way, we both find our keys or we don't. You think you are in control of that and I know that God is whether I find them or not. Watch my video before this one on faith- I'm sure you'll misunderstand that as well.
"Is it a leap of faith to not-believe in the Tooth Fairy?"- No, ask your mommy and daddy about that. If they are honest people they'll tell you the truth. Oh, I'm sorry to say, but Santa Claus- you better ask about that, too.
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 14:1-3.
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God"
This is a 'hook' in the religion designed to keep your mind ensnared. Islam has similar warnings about the disbelievers and about other faiths. Once you understand that these litle 'clauses' crop up in almost all religions - you'll be on your way to seeing why it has such a hold on you and how you can escape.
Ah, the wisdom of unbelief- "We know what's REALLY going on here!"- lol, you think you've got it all figured out don't you? Have you really considered the logic in that statement you made above? It's rediculous.
What's rIdiculous is that believers will see the folly of the fear tactics & rewards in *others* religions, but not their own.
Are you even slightly tempted by the 72 virgins on offer by the muslims? Are you even slightly fearful of the wrath of Allah? no? Could be that you see it for what it is - a clause to keep people in.
Obviously I cant speak for all non-believers, only myself. But for me its the exact opposite. I don't have it all figured out. Seems having it all figured out is more like the religious position. There may or may not be a higher unseen power in the universe or beyond...I simply don't know. However the tiny little bit I do have figured out tells me that religions don't know either.
That was a level-headed and seemingly honest statement. It's more than most of your counterparts have admitted to. However, your last statement, in regards to my faith, I can be sure and am sure. That doesn't do anything for you, but I expect that you'll take me as being truthful when I say that having a knowledge of faith you do not posess.
OK, but just remember you are taking equally big risks. For example you will burn in hell if Islam is correct. Look at some of the videos on youtube about Islam. They all have as much (if not more) conviction as you. They all use verses from the Koran to prove that Islam is the only true faith. Why should I follow your "truth" & not theirs? Have those newly discovered isolated Brazilian tribes people been going to hell all these years too? They have never even heard of Jesus or the bible. Fair?
Don't follow what I say or what anyone else says- listen to the gospel, read, study, and if the Lord is working in your life you'll come to true faith in Him by the hearing of the gospel. If not, then you will continue to believe whatever you want to believe.
Well friend we obviously have different viewpoints but its all good :)
I would be interested in your views on those Brazilian tribes people who have never heard of the bible or Jesus however. Simply because I find it interesting how people of such devotion can reconcile these issues. Have these tribes people been going to hell all these years? They seem to live peacefully with each other. Do you accept that its pretty good proof that human morality can exist without the need of Christianity?
So that book is a huge list of strawmen arguments? Science does not and can not claim to disprove god. It can only, and does only, prove god isn't required.
Science does not prove that at all. At the most it can offer a carnal and/or natural alternative, but it cannot prove the nonexistence or the lack of necessity for God. You accuse this book of 'strawmen' arguments, but that is exactly what this book exposes in the atheist/Dawkins camp. Have you read the rest of the book? I'm sure you haven't and you cannot make such a claim.
If science provides a "natural alternative" then by definition it negates the requirement of god because it provides an alternative cause and/or mechanism. Science's goal isn;t to disprove your god, Frankly it has bigger fish to fry, But if some of it's discoveries negates the need of a god then so be it. If at any point science threatens you god then it demonstrates nothing except that your god is used to fill gaps that are yet to be filled by science.
I'm not going to argue with you for 2 reasons: 1. It wouldn't get either of us anywhere and 2. with a statement like the one I quoted from you above you would continue to make rediculous ataements which negate themselves.
What is your point? Of coursed atheists are biased. I have a bias towards idiocy and fallacy.
ShaolinSoldier 1 year ago
@ShaolinSoldier Towards or against? I hope you meant "against" in the traditional sense. Pardon my grammar Nazism.
ZotDudot7 9 months ago
Dawkins is good, I prefer Hitchens. You religious people are ridiculous.
ShaolinSoldier 1 year ago
this just shows how people are hellbent on beliving in god, they just have to beleive its too scary for them to wtness the world for what it really is, a hostile wolf eat wolf playground.
ericdelossantos1 1 year ago
Lame.
kauaiphil 1 year ago
The biblical accounts can't be reliable because it's an ancient book that's been translated between many different languages numerous times by different people. Even the original versions can't be trusted, because those who wrote it can't be identified, and few of the important events mentioned in the bible are mentioned in other works of literature from that time.
Just because some random book with holy in the title says something doesn't make it true.
dagspoket 1 year ago
The Theist Challenge
It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
You people are so silly.
iDaruma 2 years ago
I wonder why the idea that the two creation stories in genesis might be allegorical in nature is so scary to so many.
raintree93 2 years ago
The idea of that is not scary, it's just not true. I've entertained that thought in the past, particularly before I became a believer. Not until you study scripture and the Hebrew in those accounts do you really understand the historicity of the account.
bberchin 2 years ago
@bberchin Well, I actually have. I have a degree in religious studies, and grew up in a church that believed literally in the bible. It wasn't until my early 30s that I began looking into things I'd never really had a good answer for that I started to doubt the literal account(s).
I still think there is room there for significant interpretation- especially considering the fact that in ancient civilizations this was what they did- they told stories.
raintree93 2 years ago
Dang... the Richard Dawkins puppets are going after you dude. Lol, you make good points and they are just trying to defend their leader. Good job man.
1BloodWolf87 2 years ago
I never get a break! Thanks.
bberchin 2 years ago
@1BloodWolf87 This is why there is so much animosity. Puppets? Was that necessary? Perhaps some of us came to similar conclusions without the assistance of professor Dawkins.
raintree93 2 years ago
This speaker is off the mark.
Dawkins has said on numerous occasions that the concept of God is outside of science, and for that reason science is unconcerned with His existence.
Dawkins' own personal view is that God doesn't exist, but that is not a scientific statement, which he freely admits. He has also stated that he cannot rule out God's existence.
indoctus41 2 years ago 8
One thing we need to understand is that science is not in the business of proving things.
Science is in the business of studying the cosmos and everything in it and explaining it using hypotheses which progress to theories once they are founded on facts.
Science has NOTHING to do with god. If anybody claims that it does, then they are simply wrong and don't understand what science is.
Science studies existence, nothing else.
fatfist 2 years ago
you look like colin farrell
but you also look irrational
VarialProductions 2 years ago
ok... besides me, what does irrational look like so I can work on that?
bberchin 2 years ago
Maybe that was a cheap shot.
Since you came back so reasonably I would be remiss not to assume you might be rational.
However, I have seen the type of objections people launch to Richard Dawkins and they are always poorly grounded in science or reason. So I assumed you have nothing new to say.
The thing is Richard Dawkins makes a flawless case. He keeps it ultra objective and based on the evidence. So I don't see how people can object to the facts.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Thank you for a reasonable response. I have nothing new to say- only refutations and thoughts. As for Richard Dawkins case- it is not flawless. I've seen him while interviewed contradict himself and seemingly make things up as he talks. His case is pop-philosophy and pop-science at best. He is only the latest fad in atheism... there will be others and no one brings anything new to the table.
bberchin 2 years ago
You would be surprised at what I have seen from Theists in debates. Richard Dawkins could have publicly burned the bible and it wouldn't start to compensate for what I've seen. Pop science and Pop philosophy does not speak to the truth claims of its assertions. You use it as an insult as do many others but you do not exhibit the usual baggage that goes along with it. I would like to know what contradictions he has made publicly. Send me a PM
VarialProductions 2 years ago
The problem is, Science has proven God does not exist in any form that science recognizes as reality. Thus God may as well not exist, because there is no interaction between God and Humans.
You chose to believe in one of many different belief systems that cannot be "proven" over a tool to understand reality. This is your problem, not mine.
Science is a tool for human understanding.. Your label that science is a god to some people, is proof of your insanity.
Vynjira 2 years ago 7
Come to my page and listen to my audio response to the video entitled Atheist and hear about the battles within the evolutionist's camp.
jsloan777 3 years ago
So you think NOT believing in something is a leap of faith?
like peace through war, love through hate.
That's double-plus-good.
ManicEightBall 3 years ago
Yes, not believing in something can be a leap of faith. Not believing in Christ is a dangerous leap of faith which will lead to eternal torment if persisted in.
bberchin 3 years ago
So are you taking a leap of faith to not believe in Allah, Thor, Zeus, the god of the Jews, the tooth fairy, blah blah?
There are a ton of gods you *could* believe in, but you don't. How much effort did that take to not believe?
You only think it's a leap of faith with your god because you already believe, but you have to understand, for atheists, your god is like any other.
Oh yeah, that whole leap of faith to not believe is double talk, in case you didn't get my point.
ManicEightBall 3 years ago 2
I understand why you think that way. That's fine. The double-talk comment, though, is your interpretation of my point and is either a misunderstanding of the point or just a twist to invalidate it.
bberchin 3 years ago
Are you saying to be on the safe side we should believe in God or we'll be punished? But if God's all knowing he'll know I don't really believe in him. I can't believe in something by choice.
daveshawkaz 2 years ago
1st. no a leap of faith means you have to have faith in something. if you have no faith. then there is not leap. it's eponymous.
your religion takes a leap of faith. and atheism decides not to take that leap.
2nd. only an agnostic is unbiased. so don't preach this stuff that dawkins is biased when you are just as biased. if you weren't biased you wouldn't be saying things like if you persistently disbelieve christianity, you'll suffer eternal torment.
don't be a hypocrite.
codarkstarxx13 2 years ago
I never aid I wasn't biased. I know I am, but your statement above about atheists not taking a leap of faith is absurd. You're assuming God doesn't exist and have rejected all of the evidence to support His existence and rejecting the possibility of His exitence. Not only is that stupid, but it is also a leap of faith- you can't prove it and neither can I.
bberchin 2 years ago
but it is not a leap of FAITH. i have no faith towards your god. i am unfaithful. therefore it's not a leap. if you're taking a leap, then i can't be against you and take the same leap.
the only reason you think i'm taking a leap, is because religion has been so engraved in society's head as completely fact, it's frowned upon to say it's fictitious. otherwise, you would be the only one marked as taking a leap of faith.
codarkstarxx13 2 years ago
good work! I enjoy seeing your kids running around in the back!
caveatemp 3 years ago
A positive comment! Thank you! I've been sifting through a slew of atheist comments for an hour now!
bberchin 3 years ago
I know the feeling. I spend a fair time corresponding with atheists around here myself. It's a religion, the 'new atheism' is. And not one with any sort of depth either. It's usually parroting from The God Delusion. Stuff like, "Darwin made it intellectually plausible to be an atheist." Just silly stuff when you actually know a bit of history.
I love Tim Keller. He's an amazing speaker and writer. He and NT Wright and Ravi Zacharias are my favorite Christian thinkers. Keep up the good work!
caveatemp 3 years ago
Wow, if you think atheism is anything like a religion, then you are pretty poorly eductated on the subject. Typical of a brain washed Christian.
AirplaneRider 3 years ago
At least are brains are clean- well, not completely. ;)
bberchin 3 years ago
God is infallible. This is what gets religion in trouble with Science because science is a process and not infallible.
Proof is a 2-way street, Religion claims to have the answer without proof.
Science has given an answer with some proof but it hasn't worked out all the details.
To insist your religion is still right because science doesn't know is very foolish and doesn't change the fact your religion has already failed to prove itself. Science will keep working til they figure it out.
Vynjira 3 years ago
Science is fallible. This is what gets unbelievers in trouble with Christianity because God is an eternal and perfect being who created all things.
There is no proof- there is much evidence and Christ has the answer to our problem.
You can't have "some proof". You may have evidence, but you cannot prove anything.
Science is not the answer to all things. However, science sounds like it's your god.
bberchin 3 years ago
Science discards religion as it can't be subjected to scientific testing; that may sound ridiculous, but unlike religion, science doesn't take anything (generally speaking) on trust or advisement, until it can be proven by means of examination logic of given law and deduction. There are scientists who teach evolution as proven, when in majority it isn't. That to me is irresponsible science, particularly as they attack Christianity for having no 'definite proof'. Proof is a 2-way street; show us.
MatlockJack 3 years ago
Certain micro-aspects of evolutionary theories have been proven (eg. natural selection of Darwin's Galapagos finches); what's NOT been proved is the entire ape-midway-stage-man deal. If science can manage to ascertain that chain indefeasibly, it will destroy God from his very first premise; "in the beginning God". Despite this, I remain a creationist as no such evidence has been uncovered (Piltdown Man??) Science has to answer this: if God isn't the source of life, who or what WAS?. NO waffling
MatlockJack 3 years ago
Although you raise a somewhat valid point, you do miss something.
Any well thought student of truth (science, knowledge in general) doesn't claim that science disproves the idea of supernatural forces. The main problem we have is that you have no real evidence for your claims (and before you claim that the Bible is proof, there is no good evidence to show that that is true).
All we ask is that you show evidence for your claims, but you can't. Science has evidence for it, which is why we choose..
TheThoughtsOfMcMc 3 years ago
..to believe it as true. We call theories theories because they are views based on the availible evidence.
Religion doesn't do this. Religion bases on all it's views on scripture, which has no good evidence for it.
Nobody should claim that one disproves the other. We only ask for you to provide evidence for your beliefs.
TheThoughtsOfMcMc 3 years ago
I never claimed that science disproves the idea of supernatural forces, but rather it has no answer for miracles and usually concludes that they cannot exist because of that fact. What's more, if science does find an answer to a miracle in the way of explanation they seem to use that as proof that the miracle was not a miracle at all- another farce. Also, there is plenty of evidence for the scriptures and the content of scripture- you either don't know it or reject it as evidence.
bberchin 3 years ago
In fact, a lot of your scientific evidence you would use against the content of scripture is the same evidence that is for it- Psalm 19.
bberchin 3 years ago
Also I would like to add, if you want to believe in the Bible as the holy word of God without ever questioning it or thinking for yourself (religion does discourage independent thinking), thats fine as long as you keep it to yourself. Let it exist in your head. Please don't bring "Intelligent Design" in our public schools and brainwash our kids. Science class is for SCIENCE only
bballa0209 3 years ago
Wow, you assume a lot don't you? You told me!
bberchin 3 years ago
Actually that wasn't directed at you. But I am still waiting for you to reply to my earlier comments...
bballa0209 3 years ago
How arrogant and self flattering for you to assume a believer in GOD doesnt ever question or think for himself. Mans arrogance and pride is his greatest folly.
Pinkyhands 3 years ago 2
And his GREATEST DOWNFALL might I add!:)
Pinkyhands 3 years ago
How arrogant and self-flattering for you to assume I was talking about God. Please, for the sake of your own intelligence, go back and read what I said. (I think it was something like, religion discourages independent thoought). Key word is religion. Not god. There's God, then there's man. Religion is the bureaucracy between man and God.
bballa0209 3 years ago
You're the one making a leap of faith by going AGAINST scientific reason to go on believing in miracles that were written by men before they even knew what a cell or molecule was. Through science, we know that a man can't live inside of a whale, it can't rain frogs, a sea can't be parted, and noah can't make an arc with 2 of every species (there are over 10,000 species of birds alone). So please explain how richard is making a leap of faith when he has ALL the evidence on his side.
bballa0209 3 years ago
1st. I dont need a scientist to tell me I cant live in a whale and so on. I suggest you look for the definition of MIRACLE. 2nd It takes more FAITH to beleive in a system that is constantly evolving. Whats truth for science today is "not-so-true"tommorow. Impeccable history of changing its mind. 3rd Read the Bible. It doesnt say 2 of every SPECIES. It says 2 of every kind.
Pinkyhands 3 years ago
What are you talking about? You strike me as someone who knows very little on the subject and who has read none of the positions against your own. I understand what a miracle is, but how is it a leap of faith for me to believe them to be impossible when I have all the scientific evidence to support it? Science is not "constantly evolving", we have a very good understanding of how the world works and the evidence is further piling on..not sure how that is "evolving."
bballa0209 3 years ago
Also, "Whats truth for science today is "not-so-true"tommorow. Impeccable history of changing its mind"
Really? Care to share any examples? Have you ever bothered to read a science textbook? Evolution isnt some crackpot theory, your nuts if you DONT believe in it.
bballa0209 3 years ago
Also, you make an absurd claim that richard dawkins is somehow making a leap of faith when assuming no miracles ever occured. Uhh, lets define leap of faith, shall we? A leap of faith is when you go on believing in something despite a lack of evidence for it. Dawkins believes there were no miracles. HE HAS ALL THE EVIDENCE HE NEEDS (its called science) TO KNOW THAT NONE OCCURRED.
bballa0209 3 years ago
Leap of faith as in believing we come from monkeys when theres no proof? Leap of faith in 1st there was nothing...then IT blew up? Again LETS DEFINE MIRACLE. And NO science has not PROVEN miracles DONT exist. Your problem isnt that you cant grasp miracles its you cant grasp GOD.
Pinkyhands 3 years ago
You are an idiot. How can you say there's no proof for evolution? Im not sure if oyu are ignorant or just plain stupid. There are 2 explanations for how we got here: The one AGREED UPON BY EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD, and then there's the one WITH THE NAKED LADY AND THE TALKING SNAKE. One of them has some evidence, the other one relies solely on the tiny brains of morons like you.
bballa0209 3 years ago
Name-calling? Come on, bballa0209. You seem to be a hot-head who is more interested in the adverserial process rather then getting at the truth. You are entitled to your opinions and you are entitled to share whatever facts you think relevant, but please be grown-up about it or I will have to remove your comments and block you. Thanks.
bberchin 3 years ago
Cmon man. There's opinion and then there's facts. When pinkyhands dismisses scientific theory as lacking evidence, that's just embarassing. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm just calling people out who reject science because it doesn't correspond with their personal beliefs that they were taught when they were a young child. It's incredibly arrogant and its also dangerous.
bballa0209 3 years ago
Why did you not say anything about the name-calling and childish behavior I called you out on?
bberchin 3 years ago
Ok...I didn't know this was group therapy, I won't call names if you don't want me to. But I'll tell you what I think is childish..believing stories written in an unreliable book are more credible than scientific evidence. Why don't you say anything about pinkyhands and his childsish claim that we "came from monkeys and there's no proof"? Maybe if he would take some time to actually read about the theory of evolution he might learn some things and then we could have an intelligent conversation
bballa0209 3 years ago
To quote you: "Science is very important. But it is not going to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the claims of the scriptures..."
Actually, science ALREADY HAS DISPROVED claims of the scriptures. In the Bible, it says that the earth is flat (its actually round if you take a close look at a globe). You seem to be demonizing the scientific community but you lack the very perspective in which you seek. I'm still waiting to hear your evidence that the bible is the word of god....
bballa0209 3 years ago
Im afraid you're the one who is biased. You seem to group all scientists together as atheists and close-minded, when really you need to keep more of an open mind. You posted earlier that the bible is the "infallible word of God." Well HOW DO YOU KNOW? This is why no scientist can take you seriously, because you fall within certainty of outrageous claims that can't possibly be known to man.
bballa0209 3 years ago
God is infinite: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalm 19:1)
Imagine when telescopes weren't invented yet, and they wonder who or what put up the stars in the sky. Now in the 21st century with the invention of Hubble we are still wondering who or what brought about the countless galaxies in our universe.
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
Atheistic presupposition: Science is the only way to tell the truth.
Self-refuting claim: If that statement is absolutely true, then with what scientific method did scientists use to come up with that absolute truth?
Science requires observation of physical evidence; an infinite regression of the finite universe' "birth to death" sequence is impossible because evidence shows the universe has a beginning. Laws of Thermodynamics confirms that. Before that beginning cannot be "observed."
FaithisNOTblind 3 years ago
"Atheistic presupposition: Science is the best way to discern truth in a reliable and repeatable manner."
Fixed.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
fail
BillyBobsEel 3 years ago
Darn, and I wanted so much to pass! lol ;)
bberchin 3 years ago
better luck next time
p.s. the bible says its ok to have slaves(amongst otehr things
BillyBobsEel 3 years ago
Don't understand why you quoted from the Bible rather than one of the numerous other mythological books. If you want to claim some special status for some specific mythology, you should establish it's credentials first.
AtheistMinistry 3 years ago 2
You presuppose the Bible is a mythological book. It is not; it is the infallible word of God and defines my faith. Why would I use another text to validate my faith? That makes no sense.
bberchin 3 years ago
What evidence do you have that it is the infallible word of God?
AtheistMinistry 3 years ago 2
Exactly, why use one of the many other religious books out there.. That is just totally ridiculous to even think that your book may be wrong. I mean faith in a Supreme Being is in your head anyway. The Bible is so ambiguous that you could make a case for anything and everything all at once. Great book.
OonslaughtoO 3 years ago
So, it is "bad science" to deny that people can be raised from the dead??
Why don't you guys straighten these poor, confused scientists out, by bringing a corpse back to life, while they watch?
Science says we should believe what there is reason to believe.
You say we should believe what you have been told to believe.
bobharris77 3 years ago 2
Let me help you out here. Supernatural causes CANNOT exist - because if we observe something previously thought to be supernatural, it would no longer be so. It would then be natural and scientists would set about understanding it.
If you could present evidence that "miracles" took place, you would soon have the entire scientific community on your side - including I am sure, Dr. Dawkins.
But you know as well as I, that will never happen, right?
bobharris77 3 years ago
This is one of the most pathetic cases for religion, I have ever seen. Why is it a "leap of faith" to deny that which has never been proven, and which can never be demonstrated?
"It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist".
Are you actually arguing that science is obligated to prove the nonexistence of invisible, magical beings??
Why can't you accept the responsibility of proving that such a thing does exist?
bobharris77 3 years ago
Most genuine atheists do not claim god is totally non-existent. We make the point that the concept cannot be unequivocally disproved but propose that science, rational thinking and analysis of the "evidence" for god makes his existence very implausible.
"Claims of the scriptures and the truths that we know from the scriptures." You had it right the first time. The bible is myth! There might be some truths but they are grossly exaggerated. You live your life based on a bronze-aged story!
RockCairn 3 years ago
I cannot believe you don't understand or you are simply refuses to see the faults in your logic of phenomenon. It is quite evident that you know nothing about science and heavily rely on your faith base reasoning. ie. poof and therefore it is and will always be logic. I feel sorry for you.
BMWmotorrad14 3 years ago
I have, and based on their "teachings"... I think if they existed in the same time frame... MOSES, DAVID, JESUS, BUDDAH, MUHAMMAD, MAHAVIRA, ZARATHUSTRA, SHIVA, ABRAHAM, SOLOMON, TENSKWATAWA, KRISHNA, OSHO, ZEUS etc... THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD FRIENDS!!! OR VERY GOOD ENEMIES .... because they are so similar... love.. respect and peace!
cheers!!! have a wonderful day man!
kytos 3 years ago
it's just about broadening your mind. I've read all those "Ancient Scriptures" I mentioned before (Theravada, Mahayana, The Book of the Bible, The Principia Discorida, Daozang, The Avesta Collection, The Pyrgi Tablets, The Qu'ran, The Śruti, Svetambara, The Tanakh, The Orphic Poems, Dianetics, Kojiki, etc).... HAVE YOU??...
kytos 3 years ago
Since your argument is based on Dr. Tim Keller, I suggest you also read any of Salvador Freixedo early books. Being someone who served the Vatican, Jesus and "GOD" for more then 30 years... He gives you a great insight on what "normal" people don't know about what they believe in.... Another good one is Dr. Bart D. Erham's "Misquoting Jesus", just to show you how "divine" the scriptures are.
Before you criticize me or the books... just read them... you won't change your mind I'm sure, but...
kytos 3 years ago
An Atheist doesn't believe in any self proclaimed illuminated prophets, man made or man created GODS (ZEUS, APOLLO, KRISHNA, BUDDHA, OSIRIS, JESUS, MUHAMMAD, MOSES, MAHAVIR, MITHRA, HUITZILOPOCHTLI, AHURA MAZDA, HERMES, SHANGDI, NGAI, YAHVEH, etc.) or any "Ancient Scripture" (Theravada, Mahayana, The Book of the Bible, The Principia Discorida, Daozang, The Avesta Collection, The Pyrgi Tablets, The Qu'ran, The Śruti, Svetambara, The Tanakh, The Orphic Poems, Dianetics, Kojiki, etc.)
kytos 3 years ago
This is all based on the God of the Gaps fallacy...because we can't explain certain phenomenon, God did it! In all actuality, if there were logical evidence pointing to a god, science would support it. Because a complicated universe doesn't logically point to a 'creator', science does not point to it.
Evidence is all that matters.
OUexclusive 3 years ago
There could be other reasons for gravity! Like God! There could be other reasons for this money under my pillow...like the toothfairy!
OUexclusive 3 years ago
>"It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others- that's good science. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist."
Only problem is, science does not do this and no one insists that it does.
Mr. Keller has constructed a fabulous strawman, and you are doing a fabulous job kicking the stuffing out of it.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
"Only problem is, science does not do this and no one insists that it does."- So, you don't pay any attention to Richard Dawkins and the claims atheists make to discount the existence of God?
bberchin 3 years ago
Dawkins makes a personal choice not to believe in God. He repeats this all the time. He does so because there isn't one scintilla of evidence that he exists. There is nothing that explicitly says he DOESN'T exist either, which is why he makes that choice. He's probably right, and he knows it.
ltflermy 3 years ago
I'm sorry but examples of healing like the one you gave are no proof at all. There could be any number of things going on here....misdiagnosis, selective memory, exageration or yes, even lying. Drs often have no explination for things, it means nothing. Examples like the one you gave happen all the time but note they happen to people of all faiths & athiests & downright bad people too.
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago
To continue my point; people often claim god cured someones cancer. Yet he never seems to make limbs grow back. Could it be because cancer can go into remission naturally but severed limbs cant grow back naturally. I'll tell you this. If someone lost a leg in a car accident or something which then grew back fully formed and all this was properly documented I would instantly become a true believer. So would lots of other people. One true miracle, thats all we ask for. Why doesnt this ever happen?
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago
"I would instantly become a true believer."- No you wouldn't. Christ brought a man back from the dead in front of many people and some of them still didn't believe.
"One true miracle, thats all we ask for."- God's providence does not happen on your terms and it is arrogant to expect that. Many miracles have happened and are happening- you just refuse to see it.
bberchin 3 years ago
Forgive the snarkiness, but how is that any different from my perspective, than the crazy guy in the asylum seeing ghosts. He tells me they are flying through my head but that I refuse to see them? Why should I call him crazy and you divinely inspired?
Cafeeine 3 years ago
You can't dismiss it simply by offering reasons why it might not have happened that way- you simply cannot and won't believe it. Also, miracles have nothing to do with what faith they belong to or how "good" or "bad" they are. Christians see the hand of God and everyone else ignores it and denies it.
bberchin 3 years ago
You are right that science can't disprove the existence of god. This is because it is not testable, and hence not falsifiable. However, any hypothesis of a god who interferes and violates natural laws is both testable and falsifiable.
crazypills2 3 years ago
I agree with your first 2 statements, but I disagree with your last statement because it does not agree with your first statement. Science has not ruled out the possibility of anomaly or the manifestation of an unexpected and unexplainable natural phenomenon. You simply cannot, by science alone, rule out the possibility of miracles. Only by bias and presupposition can you do so.
bberchin 3 years ago
"...I disagree with your last statement because it does not agree with your first statement."
Actually, it doesn't. The existence of a god is different from the existence of a god who violates natural laws. For instance, deists believe in a god, but that he doesn't interfere in everyday life. This hypothesis is not falsifiable, since there is no way to test it.
However, a god who violates natural laws can be tested. Victor Stengel wrote a book about this called "The god hypothesis."
crazypills2 3 years ago
God doesn't "violate" laws which He created. He is God and is free to use what He has created to carry out His perfect will. You speak as if you or someone else made up these laws you accuse God of violating.
bberchin 3 years ago
"God doesn't "violate" laws which He created."
Huh, are you kidding? Did god make the sun stand still for Joshua (which is stupid because obviously the earth would have stopped rotating)? Did Jesus walk on water? Did Paul raise the dead? Did Peter heal the lame man? Are people healed today?
All of these violate natural laws.
crazypills2 3 years ago
"Huh, are you kidding?"- No.
"Did god make the sun stand still for Joshua"- Yes.
"Did Jesus walk on water?"- Yes.
"Did Paul raise the dead?"- I don't recall an account of that.
"Did Peter heal the lame man?"- No, God did through Peter.
"Are people healed today?"- Yes, but not through people. Healing was a foundational gift only given to the Apostles to establish the church. God does perform healing miracles which are unexplainable- my pastor is a perfect example.
bberchin 3 years ago
My pastor was in a life-threatening accident about 35 years ago when a motorcycle hit him on a highway. It shattered his hip and he was laid up in the hospital for weeks with a host of injuries from the accident. His hip, which was to be replaced, healed overnight and the doctor had no explanation. His hip was shattered one day and the next day it was healthy and in one piece. That accident was the catalyst for my pastor going into the ministry.
bberchin 3 years ago
I was a christian for 30 years and have heard many tales like this. The issue is that no one can ever show documented proof of the events.
This is why god never heals amputees like the 10 question vid shows. He only does stuff that we can do ourselves.
crazypills2 3 years ago
So my pastor is a liar? Is that what you're saying? Or, he fixed it himself overnight? How about his hospital records and x-rays? That's not "documented proof"? You're a fool to say such a thing and you weren't a Christian- you were playing Christian. Watch my video "I'm a Former Chrsitian".
bberchin 3 years ago
"So my pastor is a liar?"
I don't know. I do know that memory is a very unreliable source, especially for events that occurred long ago.
"How about his hospital records and x-rays?"
This might constitute evidence. Do you have them?
"You're a fool to say such a thing and you weren't a Christian- you were playing Christian."
Hmmm, do you know me? Do you know my experiences? Trust me, I was a christian, but I left the faith. I have many reasons, but mainly god's true character.
crazypills2 3 years ago
bberchin; Why would his hip heal overnight and not the rest of his wounds?
It is a misdiagnosis plain & simple, Happen time &time again. It is always something that is hard to see. My mother lost a foot due to diabete no matter how many people pray for her (Same denomination as you) No one has ever had there limb grow back period, Thank you Yvan
quebec10000 3 years ago
Then God violates natural laws and can be tested. This kind of god is falsifiable.
crazypills2 3 years ago
Interesting logic- doesn't make sense, but interesting anyway. I'm afraid to ask, but can you explain that?
bberchin 3 years ago
"I'm afraid to ask, but can you explain that?"
You claim that god can violate natural laws. Like all science, we create a hypothesis and test it.
One hypothesis might be that god heals. We can then study this and check for evidence. These must be things which cannot be done through doctors or have a natural explanation (e.g amputees are a great example).
A 2nd hypothesis might be that god answers prayer. Do you believe in prayers? We can test this with group studies.
crazypills2 3 years ago
You can't test God and, besides, you've already skewed your little test by saying these things cannot be done through doctors or natural explanation. Your presupposition is that miracles are impossible and cannot exist so you are going to create a study which leads to that conclusion. Why not investigate the ones which have already happened? I gave you a perfect account of a miracle, but you rejected it. You didn't even begin your "study".
bberchin 3 years ago
Good video! I need to get that book. :)
God Bless and I look forward to part 2.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Come now you know from my other comments on this page that I have at least one other reason: conflicts of different religions whos followers exhibit the same level of conviction & the fact that you cant all be right. And believe you me I have plenty of other reasons too. No, with this comment I was simply proposing a reasonable alternative explanation for why the bible (and Koran) would have such verses. Let me ask you why do you think the Koran has such verses?
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago
Every religion SHOULD have verses such as these if they wish to make the claims they make. However, personal conviction proves nothing. I had the same hang-up when I first became a Christian. Who's right?! The answer I got was that Christ is right and it made sense to me. From then on I devoted my time to studying Him and getting to know Him and have come to find out that my faith in Him is founded. I do not rely on my mind and that of others to prove anything- I rely on Christ.
bberchin 3 years ago
I often wonder when people quote verses from the bible that say things like "fools wont believe & will mock but its still the truth" (forgive my paraphrasing). Don't they ever consider that maybe the men who wrote the bible said "hey guys this stuff is going to be pretty hard to swallow & its bound to get questioned...so lets put something in there to cover ourselves" Kind of like a preemptive strike against skepticism. Its really not that hard a scenario to imagine & seems very likely.
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago 3
Hell yes. Consider that any religion without these mental-fish-hooks would be outcompeted by any other religion that did have them.
Islam for example is obsessive in it's warnings about disbelievers.
neuronstorm 3 years ago 2
I guess you're a "smart" fish, hey? Not all food is bait, my friend.
bberchin 3 years ago
These are fish-hooks in the sense that they have backwards-facing barbs making extraction difficult.
I've never taken a bite of the religious bait - and there's plenty to eat out here.
neuronstorm 3 years ago
"I've never taken a bite of the religious bait"- Are you sure? We're pretty sneaky! ;) Also, man being by nature a religious being is always looking for something to believe in. Can you honestly say you don't believe in anything? I have no use for religion either, but I do find it absolutely necessary and joyful to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. You can call that religion, but the word religion comes with connotations which do not characterize true Christian faith.
bberchin 3 years ago
I recognize some people like to make a distinction between organised religion and their own religious beliefs.
I don't agree that man is by nature 'religious'. I see religious thought as a reality-bypassing short-circuit in trying to understand the world. 'Seeking comprehension' I'll agree is in our nature so I'm just at odds with you about what is a valid way to seek truth. Ancient dogma aint it. I guess I 'believe' that evidence-based reasoning aka science is the best way to find answers.
neuronstorm 3 years ago
"I've never taken a bite of the religious bait"- Are you sure? We're pretty sneaky! ;)
Well I'm pretty sure I believed in Santa as a kid... was that one of your tricks? ..sort of an intro to believing in bigger things? ;)
neuronstorm 3 years ago
No trick, but the belief in things which we know to be false and the expectation of people to believe things we know to be true by faith is confusing and very damaging; especially to children. My kids do not believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or anything like them. They DO believe in Christ and understand (at least as much as they can at this point) that the idea of Santa is folklore and Christ is real even without His physical presence to prove it.
bberchin 3 years ago
Santa, the Gateway Deity.
They start you off on the Jolly guy then work you towards Jesus, kinda like a pot dealer who then turns you on to heroin. :P
Atheistprimate 3 years ago 6
Did you understand the point I was making? Read my comment I made above to DaveGrossmanSoloBass about his tooth fairy comment.
bberchin 3 years ago
Awesome comment AP. (:
stagism 3 years ago
lol
bberchin 3 years ago
Look at that AP, even Brett got a good laugh out of that one. (;
stagism 3 years ago
lolx2
bberchin 3 years ago
Speculation and a conspiracy theory? Is that all you have to justify your unbelief? I guess that's the only place you can go without knowledge.
bberchin 3 years ago
Ok, so you don't like the science dismissing miricles because its never seen them to record and test them. Fine. You get your god to give us a miricle to study, and we'll get on it. As things sit, there are perfectly socialogical and psychological reasons for all the bibles contents, and most of it directly relates to a religious penis measuring contest. Study the anthropology of religions for a while, and you seem most religions follow the same pattern as yours. Christianity isn't special.
mordinvan 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins is obviously an idiot. Atheism shouldn't even be worth any of my time. Dawkins is just infamous for making these outragious claims that upset the theists. He doesn't deserve any attention.
thereallefank 3 years ago
And yet you give it to him. Also adhomonim attacks don't add to your credibility at all.
mordinvan 3 years ago 2
I"m more of a Hitchens fan myself, while he may lack the diplomatic approach of Dawkins he more then makes up for in ruthlessness.
However, my personal beliefs on the subject are very much in tune with Dawkins, be it faith or reason a choice must be made.
As for miracles, they are by definition violations of natural laws, natural laws are unable to be broken thus miracles cannot exist within a finite physical existence governed by these laws.
Conclusion - No leap of faith necessary.
stagism 3 years ago
Science has not ruled out the possibility of anomaly or the manifestation of an unexpected and unexplainable natural phenomenon. You simply cannot, by science alone, rule out the possibility of miracles. Only by bias and presupposition can you do so.
bberchin 3 years ago
If we were talking hypothetics then you would be correct, however, the hypothetical simply does not translate into the physical world(at least in the context we are speaking of). Faith based claims are unverified for a reason, they simply cannot exist in a world governed by natural laws.
stagism 3 years ago
"Faith based claims are unverified for a reason, they simply cannot exist in a world governed by natural laws."- If they were physically verifiable then that would nullify faith. We would't need faith. Having the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen is a gift from God. Those who have not received the free gift can say that God and the claims of faith are unverifiable, but they cannot say we are delusional, cannot be scientists, and are wrong.
bberchin 3 years ago
bberchin is running from his homosexuality and intelligent people (Athiests) who can figure it out.
I'm not shocked anymore that so many Americans believe in a fictional dictator who lives in the sky now that I've found out why and how it happens.
That's an alarmingly large amount of mentally disturbed people in one place though. Definately time to worry people!! Now we have the internet we can ALL see Americas most deepest darkest secret and something must be done NOW!!
gbcharlie 3 years ago
Wow, this is a new one.
bberchin 3 years ago
That crap about the street lamp near the end ...
If I drop my keys in the dark, this is my "atheistic" thought process:
1) Where have my keys gone?
2) Through observation of gravity, I know they went in that direction.
3) Hopefully they'll be near the street light - that'll make them easy to find.
4) Oh shit. They're not then - they went roughly this way. Hands-and-knees time. I'll sweep with my hands as I move forward.
Your version:
1) Pray to almighty God and He will reveal your keys.
jazzx251 3 years ago
Proverbs 21:2 - Every man's way is right in his own eyes...
Sounds like a good argument to you, but it's a fallacious one.
Raada77 3 years ago
?
I would love to see you find your keys.
jazzx251 3 years ago
Well said, Raada77.
bberchin 3 years ago
Either way, we both find our keys or we don't. You think you are in control of that and I know that God is whether I find them or not. Watch my video before this one on faith- I'm sure you'll misunderstand that as well.
bberchin 3 years ago
It's a leap of faith to not-believe in something? Really?
Is it a leap of faith to not-believe in the Tooth Fairy?
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 5
"Is it a leap of faith to not-believe in the Tooth Fairy?"- No, ask your mommy and daddy about that. If they are honest people they'll tell you the truth. Oh, I'm sorry to say, but Santa Claus- you better ask about that, too.
bberchin 3 years ago
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 14:1-3.
Excellent vid Brett.
ProclaimHisWord 3 years ago
So - people who have a brain are no good?
Your religion is nonsense.
jazzx251 3 years ago
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God"
This is a 'hook' in the religion designed to keep your mind ensnared. Islam has similar warnings about the disbelievers and about other faiths. Once you understand that these litle 'clauses' crop up in almost all religions - you'll be on your way to seeing why it has such a hold on you and how you can escape.
neuronstorm 3 years ago 3
Ah, the wisdom of unbelief- "We know what's REALLY going on here!"- lol, you think you've got it all figured out don't you? Have you really considered the logic in that statement you made above? It's rediculous.
bberchin 3 years ago
What's rIdiculous is that believers will see the folly of the fear tactics & rewards in *others* religions, but not their own.
Are you even slightly tempted by the 72 virgins on offer by the muslims? Are you even slightly fearful of the wrath of Allah? no? Could be that you see it for what it is - a clause to keep people in.
neuronstorm 3 years ago 2
Obviously I cant speak for all non-believers, only myself. But for me its the exact opposite. I don't have it all figured out. Seems having it all figured out is more like the religious position. There may or may not be a higher unseen power in the universe or beyond...I simply don't know. However the tiny little bit I do have figured out tells me that religions don't know either.
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago 2
That was a level-headed and seemingly honest statement. It's more than most of your counterparts have admitted to. However, your last statement, in regards to my faith, I can be sure and am sure. That doesn't do anything for you, but I expect that you'll take me as being truthful when I say that having a knowledge of faith you do not posess.
bberchin 3 years ago
LOL. Good one
HailZeon57 3 years ago
"Science cant prove or disprove the scriptures"
Yup.
It also cant prove or disprove the Koran.
It also could not prove or disprove harry potter if I were to say I believed the events in harry potter were factual.
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago 4
Great, then believe whatever you want to believe and risk the truth of what will happen in eternity. Good luck.
bberchin 3 years ago
OK, but just remember you are taking equally big risks. For example you will burn in hell if Islam is correct. Look at some of the videos on youtube about Islam. They all have as much (if not more) conviction as you. They all use verses from the Koran to prove that Islam is the only true faith. Why should I follow your "truth" & not theirs? Have those newly discovered isolated Brazilian tribes people been going to hell all these years too? They have never even heard of Jesus or the bible. Fair?
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago 3
Don't follow what I say or what anyone else says- listen to the gospel, read, study, and if the Lord is working in your life you'll come to true faith in Him by the hearing of the gospel. If not, then you will continue to believe whatever you want to believe.
bberchin 3 years ago
Well friend we obviously have different viewpoints but its all good :)
I would be interested in your views on those Brazilian tribes people who have never heard of the bible or Jesus however. Simply because I find it interesting how people of such devotion can reconcile these issues. Have these tribes people been going to hell all these years? They seem to live peacefully with each other. Do you accept that its pretty good proof that human morality can exist without the need of Christianity?
thenigotoffthebus 3 years ago 2
"Great, then believe whatever you want to believe and risk the truth of what will happen in eternity. Good luck."
Ahh, Pascal's wager. Isn't your god omniscient? Wouldn't he know someone was faking it?
crazypills2 3 years ago
So that book is a huge list of strawmen arguments? Science does not and can not claim to disprove god. It can only, and does only, prove god isn't required.
godbegone 3 years ago 3
Science does not prove that at all. At the most it can offer a carnal and/or natural alternative, but it cannot prove the nonexistence or the lack of necessity for God. You accuse this book of 'strawmen' arguments, but that is exactly what this book exposes in the atheist/Dawkins camp. Have you read the rest of the book? I'm sure you haven't and you cannot make such a claim.
bberchin 3 years ago
If science provides a "natural alternative" then by definition it negates the requirement of god because it provides an alternative cause and/or mechanism. Science's goal isn;t to disprove your god, Frankly it has bigger fish to fry, But if some of it's discoveries negates the need of a god then so be it. If at any point science threatens you god then it demonstrates nothing except that your god is used to fill gaps that are yet to be filled by science.
godbegone 3 years ago 4
"it negates the requirement of god because it provides an alternative "- lol
bberchin 3 years ago
No argument then? Coward christian.
godbegone 3 years ago 3
I'm not going to argue with you for 2 reasons: 1. It wouldn't get either of us anywhere and 2. with a statement like the one I quoted from you above you would continue to make rediculous ataements which negate themselves.
bberchin 3 years ago