Gospel Contradictions

[crowTrobot 2]

I think that the responsibility of a Christian is to show people that a rational decision can be made to choose God and to make his/her life an example of God's love. I don't think it is a Christian's reponsibility to convince someone beyond a shadow of a doubt of anything. The nature of God is that there is enough information to rationally and intelligently decide one way or the other. If the definitive empirical evidence that crow demands was put in front of you, you wouldn't be choosing God. What intelligent person could look his Creator in the eye and say, "I can see you but I just don't believe in you."? You would be forced to believe. God told us that he isn't going to give us the whole story but he's going to give us enough that we can choose him if we so desire or reject him if we desire that instead. So it isn't "unchristian" to claim that convincing someone isn't required. People have to choose to accept or reject God, their hand can't be forced.

every other religion/cult says the same thing. all too convenient.

[semaj550 0]

every other religion/cult says the same thing. all too convenient.

So make a decision on where the evidence leads you. I've made mine, others have made theirs. All I've said all along is that the explanations provided by Christianity make the best sense of what we can observe and there is good reason to believe that what it says is true. If you don't believe then there is a lot of evidence which you need to account for in a different way. If people can do that in a way that is meaningful for them, great.

[crowTrobot 2]

So make a decision on where the evidence leads you. I've made mine, others have made theirs.

99.9% of religious people in the world believe what they believe because of cultural tradition of a particular faith, not because they are making objective decisions based on evidence.

All I've said all along is that the explanations provided by Christianity make the best sense of what we can observe

what specifically can we observe that christianity explains more sensibly than anything else?

If you don't believe then there is a lot of evidence which you need to account for in a different way.

you are again assuming that what you consider evidence for christian belief should be intrinsically compelling enough to others to merit a shift in burden of proof from you to them. it's not.

[semaj550 0]

99.9% of religious people in the world believe what they believe because of cultural tradition of a particular faith, not because they are making objective decisions based on evidence.

I suspect this "statistic" is grossly inflated. I will concede that a lot of people do believe because of those reasons, however. I probably don't like it any more than you do. I think it is important to examine one's faith.

what specifically can we observe that christianity explains more sensibly than anything else?

Another argument I think we've beaten to death.

you are again assuming that what you consider evidence for christian belief should be intrinsically compelling enough to others to merit a shift in burden of proof from you to them. it's not.

And again I'll tell you that I'm not assuming that. For purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less what people believe in. If Christianity isn't the least bit compelling to them, fine. All I am saying, among other things, is that life exists. I'm pretty sure you and I can agree on that. If you reject the Christian explanation for how it got here you now have an empircally verifiable, observable fact without an explanation. I'm suggesting that you need to come up with one. Not you specifically but people in general. I'm also suggesting that it needs to hold up under scrutiny. Inserting the FSM or Easter Bunny here won't suffice.

[crowTrobot 2]

I suspect this "statistic" is grossly inflated. I will concede that a lot of people do believe because of those reasons, however. I probably don't like it any more than you do. I think it is important to examine one's faith.

well it's inflated slightly to make a point, but certainly not grossly. obviously the vast majority of religious people follow the traditional faith(s) of their culture of origin. that is fact is backed up by numerous polls as well as common sense observation. if any significant percent of those people were deciding what to believe based on actual evidence rather than biased cultural tradition (in most cases forced on children by parents) that would not be the case.

If Christianity isn't the least bit compelling to them, fine. All I am saying, among other things, is that life exists. I'm pretty sure you and I can agree on that. If you reject the Christian explanation for how it got here you now have an empircally verifiable, observable fact without an explanation. I'm suggesting that you need to come up with one. Not you specifically but people in general. I'm also suggesting that it needs to hold up under scrutiny. Inserting the FSM or Easter Bunny here won't suffice.

sorry, but saying the christian god did it is no more an explanation for abiogenesis than saying the FSM or EB did it. however science IS working on finding an explanation, and there is no reason to think it won't eventually discover a purely naturalistic mechanism for it. it has for everything else relating to life.

[semaj550 0]

well it's inflated slightly to make a point, but certainly not grossly. obviously the vast majority of religious people follow the traditional faith(s) of their culture of origin. that is fact is backed up by numerous polls as well as common sense observation. if any significant percent of those people were deciding what to believe based on actual evidence rather than biased cultural tradition (in most cases forced on children by parents) that would not be the case.

I suspect the same accusation can fairly be made against atheists.

sorry, but saying the christian god did it is no more an explanation for abiogenesis than saying the FSM or EB did it. however science IS working on finding an explanation, and there is no reason to think it won't eventually discover a purely naturalistic mechanism for it. it has for everything else relating to life.

Science has tried and tried again...and failed. When it comes to finding a naturalistic explanation for life it is no more reasonable to conclude that science will accomplish it than it won't. Maybe it's track record for finding naturalisctic explanations for others things is great but for existence it is piss poor.Christianity does have an explanation that holds up under scrutiny but I'm done arguing that with you. You don't like metaphysics, no matter how probable their validity. You need definitive proof. I can only wish you luck in finding definitive proof through other means.

[crowTrobot 2]

I suspect the same accusation can fairly be made against atheists.

you could if atheism dominated any particular culture. it doesn't.

Science has tried and tried again...and failed. When it comes to finding a naturalistic explanation for life it is no more reasonable to conclude that science will accomplish it than it won't. Maybe it's track record for finding naturalisctic explanations for others things is great but for existence it is piss poor.

life (abiogenesis) and "existence" are different things. considering the scarcity of tangible evidence available, science has made commendable progress in explaining the former. there is no poor track record there. science currently has no track record at all in explaining existence, because it is (at least currently) beyond the technological range of testable hypothesis.

Christianity does have an explanation that holds up under scrutiny but I'm done arguing that with you.

darn, i'd like to here one. haven't yet.

You don't like metaphysics, no matter how probable their validity.

no, i'd like them a lot if their validity actually was probable lol. i would prefer there to be an afterlife.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Isn't that a faily 'unchristain view', that's like telling a child that your handgun "isn't a toy, it you shoot it, someone will get hurt", but then NOT putting a lock on it, or storing it in a safe.

actually thats a basic tenant of knowledge...the burden of proof isnt on a christian at all

[semaj550 0]

you could if atheism dominated any particular culture. it doesn't.

Neither are a lot of things but yet they tend to repeat themselves through family and other social networks. I suspect a good number of atheists only are because their parents were and have never examined their beliefs or considered others.

life (abiogenesis) and "existence" are different things. considering the scarcity of tangible evidence available, science has made commendable progress in explaining the former. there is no poor track record there. science currently has no track record at all in explaining existence, because it is (at least currently) beyond the technological range of testable hypothesis.

Abiogensis is just something living coming from something non-living, i.e. Creation (with a capital "C"). Human existence necessitates abiogensis therefore I've simply reduced the issue to that of human existence.In any event, science has tried and failed to provide a valid theory which supports natualistic abiogenesis. It has tried experimentation under unreasonably favourable circumstances to no avail. As commendable as its efforts may be they are still failing ones. Yet here we are with the problem of being here and not knowing how we got here. If you want to hold your breath in the face of rational explanations, please do so. We just can't be sure they jury is ever going to come in because if that's your approach the coming explanation of science could well be pushed off in perpetuity.

darn, i'd like to here one. haven't yet.

Seriously, pick up a copy of the Case for Chirst. Mr. Negreanu will send you one, I'll send you one. Then come back and pick apart the argument. Not because you think it's one-sided Christian propoganda but on its merits. You seem to have a good grasp of logic so if the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny it should be effortless for you. Your buddy, Mr. Bidstrup has already tried and failed.

no, i'd like them a lot if their validity actually was probable lol. i would prefer there to be an afterlife.

Probable or definitve? When it comes to metaphyiscs nothing is definitive in either direction. That is due to the fact, as you love to point out, that it is beyond the technological range of testable hypothesis.

[crowTrobot 2]

Abiogensis is just something living coming from something non-living, i.e. Creation (with a capital "C").

if you can prove abiogenesis can't happen spontaneously you would win a nobel prize. nobody can.

In any event, science has tried and failed to provide a valid theory which supports natualistic abiogenesis. It has tried experimentation under unreasonably favourable circumstances to no avail. As commendable as its efforts may be they are still failing ones. Yet here we are with the problem of being here and not knowing how we got here. If you want to hold your breath in the face of rational explanations, please do so. We just can't be sure they jury is ever going to come in because if that's your approach the coming explanation of science could well be pushed off in perpetuity.

you're really a die-hard god-of-the-gapser, aren't you lol. if science can't explain it god must have done it.

Seriously, pick up a copy of the Case for Chirst. Mr. Negreanu will send you one, I'll send you one. Then come back and pick apart the argument. Not because you think it's one-sided Christian propoganda but on its merits. You seem to have a good grasp of logic so if the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny it should be effortless for you. Your buddy, Mr. Bidstrup has already tried and failed.

i've already read as much of Case as i need to, and i don't need bidstrup to tell me it's propaganda. it only presents one side of the story, its conclusions obviously require assumptions, and it doesn't even attempt to address some of the most obvious arguments against the reliability of the gospels.

Probable or definitve? When it comes to metaphyiscs nothing is definitive in either direction. That is due to the fact, as you love to point out, that it is beyond the technological range of testable hypothesis.

a metaphysical event (something unexplainable by the pattern of physical law) occuring on earth that resulted in a physical change would be rather obvious and easily testable. theists would be universally acclaiming it. trouble is that has never happened.

[Loismustdie 0]

actually thats a basic tenant of knowledge...the burden of proof isnt on a christian at all

Head meet wall, right, Matt?

[BWToth 0]

actually thats a basic tenant of knowledge...the burden of proof isnt on a christian at all

There is nothing to prove, but that's beside the point.Isn't it implied in the idea of evangalism that you should do whatever is in your power to teach, explain and convince someone that christianity is a better path than the one they are on? I don't think the purpose of 'spreading the good news' is to cover your own ass, it is to create as many believers as possible in your lifetime, I don't know how you create many believers by telling them one time about jesus and leaving it up to them to find the path to christianity. What would say to someone that told you about another religion and said it is the one you need to follow? "sorry, i've already got one"?Simply telling people about 'the bible' is not what christianity teaches christian followers to do.

[semaj550 0]

There is nothing to prove, but that's beside the point.Isn't it implied in the idea of evangalism that you should do whatever is in your power to teach, explain and convince someone that christianity is a better path than the one they are on? I don't think the purpose of 'spreading the good news' is to cover your own ass, it is to create as many believers as possible in your lifetime, I don't know how you create many believers by telling them one time about jesus and leaving it up to them to find the path to christianity. What would say to someone that told you about another religion and said it is the one you need to follow? "sorry, i've already got one"?Simply telling people about 'the bible' is not what christianity teaches christian followers to do.

Only those whose hearts and minds are open to the good news are able to truly receive it. A Christian can show you how your salvation through Christ makes sense but if you don't want to listen, you won't. People don't get a free pass to God, they have to want Him and work toward Him. His promise is that He will come to those who want Him to.

[crowTrobot 2]

Only those whose hearts and minds are open to the good news are able to truly receive it. A Christian can show you how your salvation through Christ makes sense but if you don't want to listen, you won't. People don't get a free pass to God, they have to want Him and work toward Him. His promise is that He will come to those who want Him to.

nice cult speak. every other religion/cult says the same thing.

[BWToth 0]

Only those whose hearts and minds are open to the good news are able to truly receive it. A Christian can show you how your salvation through Christ makes sense but if you don't want to listen, you won't. People don't get a free pass to God, they have to want Him and work toward Him. His promise is that He will come to those who want Him to.

how is your telling me that I should want him to going to make me want him to?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

In any event, science has tried and failed to provide a valid theory which supports natualistic abiogenesis. It has tried experimentation under unreasonably favourable circumstances to no avail. As commendable as its efforts may be they are still failing ones.

Actually, science has come shocking close using very simple experiments. The classic example isthe Miller-Urey experiment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimentbut there have been other recent experiments using different conditions and driving forces with differing results. Though no one experiment has proved conclusive, they all demonstrate that the creation of proteins and many other building blocks of life through spontaneous reorganization of molecules is indeed possible. I would argue that the fact that we are here is evidence that such a process indeed will eventually lead to life, though I'm sure you will dismiss this as circular.

[timwakefield 68]

Science has tried and tried again...and failed. When it comes to finding a naturalistic explanation for life it is no more reasonable to conclude that science will accomplish it than it won't. Maybe it's track record for finding naturalisctic explanations for others things is great but for existence it is piss poor.Christianity does have an explanation that holds up under scrutiny but I'm done arguing that with you.

Under what type of scrutiny? If we assume the existence of a creator God, then yes the Christian explanation holds up.

[semaj550 0]

Actually, science has come shocking close using very simple experiments. The classic example isthe Miller-Urey experiment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimentbut there have been other recent experiments using different conditions and driving forces with differing results. Though no one experiment has proved conclusive, they all demonstrate that the creation of proteins and many other building blocks of life through spontaneous reorganization of molecules is indeed possible. I would argue that the fact that we are here is evidence that such a process indeed will eventually lead to life, though I'm sure you will dismiss this as circular.

I'm familar with Miller. The problem is that he has no real proof that the early atmosphere of the Earth was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, which he used in his experiement. He wanted a favourable chemical reaction so ge rigged the experiment to get it, knowing full well ahead of time what would be required. NASA scientists have shown that the primitive earth didn't have nearly enough of these gases - let alone the rich mixture Miller used - to amount to anything. What it did have was a lot of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen; from which you can't get the same reaction. Later experiments have reinforced this.The fact that we are here only proves that we somehow got here, it says nothing of the nature of our causation.

[semaj550 0]

how is your telling me that I should want him to going to make me want him to?

My job isn't to make you do anything.

[semaj550 0]

Under what type of scrutiny? If we assume the existence of a creator God, then yes the Christian explanation holds up.

Here's a primer for you:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm familar with Miller. The problem is that he has no real proof that the early atmosphere of the Earth was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, which he used in his experiement. He wanted a favourable chemical reaction so ge rigged the experiment to get it, knowing full well ahead of time what would be required. NASA scientists have shown that the primitive earth didn't have nearly enough of these gases - let alone the rich mixture Miller used - to amount to anything. What it did have was a lot of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen; from which you can't get the same reaction. Later experiments have reinforced this.

But he and other experiments showed that it is possible to generate life's components under certain, though maybe very specific, conditions. Obviously it's impossible to recreate the exact components of Earth's early atmosphere or anything else. Also, obviously he didn't have the billion years to wait to make the experiment more realistic. But these types of experiments do demonstrate that it is indeed conceivable that this type of processes under very specific conditions can produce these quote unquote building blocks. I would next argue that since it is possible to create these blocks and since we are indeed here, then it is conceivable that Earth's early atmosphere did have the proper conditions to create these building blocks. Just because it didn't exactly match the theoretical conditions of Miller's experiment doesn't mean that his is the only framework in which these blocks can be created. The real outcome of these experiments is to deny the claim that the building blocks of life are way too complicated to be created spontaneously. It is not to demonstrate that this is for sure how things took place, but rather to show that the existence of life's building blocks doesn't necessarily imply unnatural creation by a G_d or such. Obviously no one knows for sure how things came together, but nitpicking at Miller’s specific experiment doesn’t reduce the big picture that he was attempting to demonstrate.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Here's a primer for you:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

Yawn.

[timwakefield 68]

Here's a primer for you:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

I read the first page, and found nothing convincing at all. Here's something which they quoted in a bubble at the top, so they think it's important. " "Improbable things happen all the time" is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist."This makes approximately zero sense to me. Anybody can see that it is impossible to work out a probability on how likely it is that the physical laws of the universe would be as they are. As far as we know, the universe encompasses all of everything that ever was and ever will be, yet according to the above quote, they have somehow worked out that it is "virtually impossible" for things to just fall into place (if you will) the way they have. Why not wholly impossible? Why not somewhat unlikely? Why not extremely likely? Why not 100% likely? Why virtually impossible? Against what are they measuring?

[semaj550 0]

But he and other experiments showed that it is possible to generate life's components under certain, though maybe very specific, conditions. Obviously it's impossible to recreate the exact components of Earth's early atmosphere or anything else. Also, obviously he didn't have the billion years to wait to make the experiment more realistic. But these types of experiments do demonstrate that it is indeed conceivable that this type of processes under very specific conditions can produce these quote unquote building blocks.

They demonstrate that under extremely specific conditions which are enormously improbable amino acids can be created. Miller's experiment says nothing of whether those amino acids could ever develop into cells (which is another step that is so large I can't really think of an appropriate adjective).

I would next argue that since it is possible to create these blocks and since we are indeed here, then it is conceivable that Earth's early atmosphere did have the proper conditions to create these building blocks. Just because it didn't exactly match the theoretical conditions of Miller's experiment doesn't mean that his is the only framework in which these blocks can be created.

So even if amino acids could be created abiologically, how did they become proteins and then cells?

The real outcome of these experiments is to deny the claim that the building blocks of life are way too complicated to be created spontaneously. It is not to demonstrate that this is for sure how things took place, but rather to show that the existence of life's building blocks doesn't necessarily imply unnatural creation by a G_d or such. Obviously no one knows for sure how things came together, but nitpicking at Miller’s specific experiment doesn’t reduce the big picture that he was attempting to demonstrate.

So if amino acids can be created spontaneously, how do they spontaneously become life? First you have to isolate the 25% of amino acids which are foind in living organisms. You then need to link them together in the right sequence to become proteins, all the while avoiding the other molecules which tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids do with each other. You also have to separate the right types of amino acids and covince them to form the correct chemical bonds in the correct places. And that's just the first step, after all that we only have one protein molecule. We need to do that as many as two-hundred times, producing proteins with exactly the right functions just to get a typical living cell. Then you have the problem of how to create DNA and RNA...

[semaj550 0]

I read the first page, and found nothing convincing at all. Here's something which they quoted in a bubble at the top, so they think it's important. " "Improbable things happen all the time" is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist."This makes approximately zero sense to me. Anybody can see that it is impossible to work out a probability on how likely it is that the physical laws of the universe would be as they are. As far as we know, the universe encompasses all of everything that ever was and ever will be, yet according to the above quote, they have somehow worked out that it is "virtually impossible" for things to just fall into place (if you will) the way they have. Why not wholly impossible? Why not somewhat unlikely? Why not extremely likely? Why not 100% likely? Why virtually impossible? Against what are they measuring?

This isn't at all true, something had to exist before the Big Bang in order to create our universe.Obviously the quote you are disagreeing with isn't suggesting anything in terms of mathematical probabilities. However, it's pretty easy to grasp the enmormity of the number of alternate possible configurations for a universe in which stars and galaxies could not exist. There is an almost inconceivable amount of fine tuning required. To give you some perspective... The number of seconds in the history of the universe is on the order of 10^18, the number of subatomic particles in the universe is on the order of 10^80. The fining tuning of certain elements of the universe require precision on the order of 10^120.