christian counter-arguments?

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by gold.n.god

I'd like to tell you a little about the big bang theory.

Scientists have been watching galaxies and stars and everything else. The are watching it for many reasons. One reason is that the galaxies are moving. They move away from eachother. which means that they came from the same spot. which means that there was one small area where everything in the universe was located. That's some of the evidence that helps to prove the big bang theory. The teory explains life and a fairly good explanation of where the universe came from.

There is still no answer to where the GIANT MASS OF ATOMS came from. It didn't start as a ball of dust. it was a very dence lump of energy and elements. But if you can't beleive in the big bang theory because no one knows where it came from. How can you beleive in a God that no one can explain the whereabouts of where he came from? Did He Make Himself? How did he get here? those are some of the same questions that skeptics use to disprove the big bang theory.

I just don't like it when some one is so close minded that they can't accept that something they don't beleive might be possible. I'm willing to beleive that a god made everything, but I still think that the big bang and a whole bunch of lucky happenings happend at the right time to make us what we are today.

Oh maybe we can come to a compromise: God created a large mass of elements, and he wanted to see if people in the way distant future would argue about how the universe was made.

Let me tell you about Science...

Pluto is a planet... no, it's not a planet... maybe it's a planet... could be a planet... it's a planet... no, it's not a planet......

Science is great if you believe in that type of stuff. ; )

[EndUnknown]

lol... nice

Darwin was right... no.... yes....Neo-Darwinism

[putis]

Originally Posted by wizardmt70

Let me tell you about Science...

Pluto is a planet... no, it's not a planet... maybe it's a planet... could be a planet... it's a planet... no, it's not a planet......

Science is great if you believe in that type of stuff. ; )

The worst thing about this post isn't your ignorance or bias regarding science, but that you think the fact that science changes and adapts is a bad thing.

Not to mention that it's quite hypocritical, seeing as how the bible has had countless 'revisions,' and the Catholic church's stance has changed on more than a few issues.

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by putis616

The worst thing about this post isn't your ignorance or bias regarding science, but that you think the fact that science changes and adapts is a bad thing.

Not to mention that it's quite hypocritical, seeing as how the bible has had countless 'revisions,' and the Catholic church's stance has changed on more than a few issues.

Why do people have to make everything so personal? (Rhetorical ? for those as ignorant as me)

Anyway... I never stated that science changing and adapting was a bad thing, just that this makes it fallible. Ever heard the term "not an exact science"? (again, rhetorical).

I think change is a good thing. I believe that growth can only come from change. I make an effort in my Christian walk to grow daily in my relationship with Jesus Christ.

As far as the bible goes, it has several translations and stood the test of time. As a matter of fact, science continues to learn that things in the bible that were once thought impossible or improbably are actually correct.

Show me where something in the bible has went through a translation or revision that makes it inaccurate or fallible.

oops.... almost forgot.... the catholic thing... I'm not catholic and neither was Jesus so... I don't follow their teachings. non-issue for me. The Catholic church is like Scientist... they are fallible. ; )

[putis]

What makes God or the bible infallible?

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by putis616

What makes God or the bible infallible?

I could give you the standard answer for this question but I'm sure you've heard that before so I'll give you what I think/believe.

first... I believe that the Bible is God's word and that it is alive and infallible. Therefore it has the same characteristics as God. (2 Timothy 3:16)

secondly... I believe that God is who He says he is and he gives me insight to his character, through his word.

While this all requires some amount of Faith which is normally frowned upon by non-believers, it takes just as much faith to believe that science is true and accurate, or the big bang theory, or that you love someone, etc...

what makes this unique for me above the standard answer that you will get off the internet is this.

I believe in God. More importantly, I believe that he sent his son to die on the cross because of my sins and he was resurrected on the 3rd day so that I may have eternal life. (Heaven). This belief breeds my desire to read and study his word so that I may develop a relationship with him. The greater my relationship becomes the greater desire for me to be obedient to his commands and to put into action the things that he tells me. It is this action that leads me to believe that God is infallible. I have put his word into action in my life and experience the life changes that he promises me will take place. I have the things in my life that the bible tells me that I will have once I believe these things. The greater my desire to do glorify him, then the more these "truths" become real in my life. The more real these "truths" become, the more "faith" I have that God is who he say's he is.

Bottom line... God and his word have never failed me.

[dead jim]

i just want to make a few comments:

Pluto is a planet... no, it's not a planet... maybe it's a planet... could be a planet... it's a planet... no, it's not a planet......

this is silly and does damage to any genuine argument you might give. if you paid any attention to the debate, the major problem (let's ignore the persuasive claim by many that the debate is politically motivated for our purposes here) is how we define a planet. though the attributes of pluto, the objective state of affairs, is one thing, how we classify it is largely arbitrary. we can come up with a definition for 'planet' that rules out the earth. the issue is that we discovered a trans-neptunian object that was larger than pluto, and there was a strong argument that it shouldn't be called a planet. the question then was by what criteria was pluto a planet. the IAU declared an official definition for what was a planet in 2006, those criteria being: 1) the object must orbit around the sun; 2) the object must be massive enough to be a sphere because of its own gravitational force; 3) the object must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. pluto does not meet this third criteria, and this is in no way a failure of science. if there was some debate about what the criteria for "bald" was, since it is a vague predicate, and some group was deemed by the general public to be responsible for such definitions, and that groups said "a person must have less than 1000 hairs upon their head to be considered bald," then that would be the definition. there could be debate on it. why not 999? why not 1001? but whatever the group decided would be the definition by which we all went along as they were the group which was given the authority to decide.
now, do you want to say this in any way counts as an argument against God? of course not. that's ludicrous. so why bring it up? as an attack against science it fails completely as defining vague objects is hardly "scientific," unlike the attempt to discover the attributes of the object in question.
but i get what you were trying to do. you want to show that science doesn't deliver Truth. great, especially since it never claimed to do so. in fact, anything claiming to grant Truth is inherently non-scientific. science is about falsification. if something isn't in principle falsifiable, then it isn't science. hence, anything claiming to be Truth (and, as such, beyond being falsified) cannot by its very nature be scientific. but so what? does that mean science is useless? on the contrary, it's the most useful tool we have. it's falsifiable nature makes it even more so as it is self-correcting. to discount science is to discount the computer you're using right now. we didn't "discover" computers; we made them. and we made them using scientific theory. we have great reasons to go with current scientific theory, and none of that has anything to do with Truth. it has to do with being successful and pragmatic.

As a matter of fact, science continues to learn that things in the bible that were once thought impossible or improbably are actually correct.

this simply isn't true. more than that, you don't care if it's true. like history, science doesn't give you Truth, so you should not be at all concerned with whether or not science lines up with the bible. i've brought this out before, and you agreed. don't slip into making the same mistake yourself.

Show me where something in the bible has went through a translation or revision that makes it inaccurate or fallible.

you don't take this seriously. anything that could be brought up you would write off as an interpretive problem. for example, if i wanted to point out that in isaiah 7:14 the word that the kjv translates as "virgin," עלמה, (almah), is widely recognized at actually meaning "maiden" or "young woman," it is unlikely that you would concede that this is a genuine contradiction among translations. rather, you would likely suggest that some act of interpretation is necessary. however, you must realize that if someone did not already believe the bible to be infallible, and this person did not already believe that God's hand was responsible for the legitimacy of translations, then they could easily see this issue as a contradiction between translations, and this would show that at least some version or translation was fallible, and, since it is unlikely you are relying on the original hebrew, that makes it your version that is faulty.
don't for a second think this is the only example of its kind. they abound. you should never allow yourself to get roped into this kind of game, and you should certainly never try to start it yourself.

first... I believe that the Bible is God's word and that it is alive and infallible. Therefore it has the same characteristics as God. (2 Timothy 3:16)

please recognize that putis616 is probably looking for some independent reason to believe that the bible is infallible. that is, your reasoning that bible is infallible is dependent on your belief that it is the Word of God, and this is dependent upon your belief that God exists. if you didn't already believe in God, you would not believe that the bible is the holy Word, and, hence, you would not believe it is infallible. but then one might ask how it is you know about the God in which you believe since it is by his Word that you learn about him. thus it seems you have to believe in the infallibility of the Word before you can believe in God, but, as has been already pointed out, the only reason for believing it is the Word is because you already believed in God.
you can believe what you want, but you come off as dismissive, as if you're giving an obvious answer, and you're not. it's a huge leap you've taken, and you can't blame someone for not being willing to leap into the abyss with you.

While this all requires some amount of Faith which is normally frowned upon by non-believers, it takes just as much faith to believe that science is true and accurate, or the big bang theory, or that you love someone, etc...

like the first thing, this is just silly. buying science takes no faith at all. i have tons of evidence, and so do you. you buy quantum mechanics because it is what provided the background in which computers were engineered. since your computer clearly functions as predicted, that provides you with evidence and reason for your belief, and, as such, you don't need faith. the big bang theory is believed because it is the consequence of the application of the same physics that we use to design computers. since it works so well here, as in every time, we have some good reason to think it will work everywhere. we could be wrong, in which case we would discard that theory for whatever gave us better explanatory and predictive capabilities. no faith at all is requires. and i certainly don't need faith to believe that i love someone. all i do is ask, "jim, do you love this person?" check how i feel, and there it is. to say that my love for someone requires faith is the same as saying that my knowledge that i'm in pain requires faith. the fact that i feel the pain is the thing that qualifies the thing in question as even being pain in the first place. the phenomenal qualities of pain and love are what qualify them as such. it does not in any way require an act of faith.

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by dead jim

i just want to make a few comments:

this is silly and does damage to any genuine argument you might give. if you paid any attention to the debate, the major problem (let's ignore the persuasive claim by many that the debate is politically motivated for our purposes here) is how we define a planet. though the attributes of pluto, the objective state of affairs, is one thing, how we classify it is largely arbitrary. we can come up with a definition for 'planet' that rules out the earth. the issue is that we discovered a trans-neptunian object that was larger than pluto, and there was a strong argument that it shouldn't be called a planet. the question then was by what criteria was pluto a planet. the IAU declared an official definition for what was a planet in 2006, those criteria being: 1) the object must orbit around the sun; 2) the object must be massive enough to be a sphere because of its own gravitational force; 3) the object must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. pluto does not meet this third criteria, and this is in no way a failure of science. if there was some debate about what the criteria for "bald" was, since it is a vague predicate, and some group was deemed by the general public to be responsible for such definitions, and that groups said "a person must have less than 1000 hairs upon their head to be considered bald," then that would be the definition. there could be debate on it. why not 999? why not 1001? but whatever the group decided would be the definition by which we all went along as they were the group which was given the authority to decide.
now, do you want to say this in any way counts as an argument against God? of course not. that's ludicrous. so why bring it up? as an attack against science it fails completely as defining vague objects is hardly "scientific," unlike the attempt to discover the attributes of the object in question.
but i get what you were trying to do. you want to show that science doesn't deliver Truth. great, especially since it never claimed to do so. in fact, anything claiming to grant Truth is inherently non-scientific. science is about falsification. if something isn't in principle falsifiable, then it isn't science. hence, anything claiming to be Truth (and, as such, beyond being falsified) cannot by its very nature be scientific. but so what? does that mean science is useless? on the contrary, it's the most useful tool we have. it's falsifiable nature makes it even more so as it is self-correcting. to discount science is to discount the computer you're using right now. we didn't "discover" computers; we made them. and we made them using scientific theory. we have great reasons to go with current scientific theory, and none of that has anything to do with Truth. it has to do with being successful and pragmatic.

I lost interest in everything else you had to say right after you called me silly!

seriously though... I am sometimes silly and I find it silly that people are so serious all the time and not more silly, you should really loosen up and be more silly.

ok, maybe now I can be serious... I merely meant to point out that science is changing and adapting and correcting things all the time. People quote science all the time as being exact when in reality it is ever changing. Just because someone says that The sky is blue today doesn't mean it's true tomorrow when we discover that the sky isn't really blue! ; ) [/color]

this simply isn't true.

[color="Red"]Is too! Is not! Is too! just being silly again!

more than that, you don't care if it's true. like history, science doesn't give you Truth, so you should not be at all concerned with whether or not science lines up with the bible. i've brought this out before, and you agreed. don't slip into making the same mistake yourself.

I agree again.

you don't take this seriously. anything that could be brought up you would write off as an interpretive problem. for example, if i wanted to point out that in isaiah 7:14 the word that the kjv translates as "virgin," עלמה, (almah), is widely recognized at actually meaning "maiden" or "young woman," it is unlikely that you would concede that this is a genuine contradiction among translations. rather, you would likely suggest that some act of interpretation is necessary. however, you must realize that if someone did not already believe the bible to be infallible, and this person did not already believe that God's hand was responsible for the legitimacy of translations, then they could easily see this issue as a contradiction between translations, and this would show that at least some version or translation was fallible, and, since it is unlikely you are relying on the original hebrew, that makes it your version that is faulty.
don't for a second think this is the only example of its kind. they abound. you should never allow yourself to get roped into this kind of game, and you should certainly never try to start it yourself.

good point again.... I'm not stupid enough to debate this with others when people way smarter than I am have been debating this for decades. I only know for myself what I have discovered by living my life by the Word. Which I believe to be infallible.

please recognize that putis616 is probably looking for some independent reason to believe that the bible is infallible. that is, your reasoning that bible is infallible is dependent on your belief that it is the Word of God, and this is dependent upon your belief that God exists. if you didn't already believe in God, you would not believe that the bible is the holy Word, and, hence, you would not believe it is infallible. but then one might ask how it is you know about the God in which you believe since it is by his Word that you learn about him. thus it seems you have to believe in the infallibility of the Word before you can believe in God, but, as has been already pointed out, the only reason for believing it is the Word is because you already believed in God.
you can believe what you want, but you come off as dismissive, as if you're giving an obvious answer, and you're not. it's a huge leap you've taken, and

agreed again... (man you are tough) I can only give putis what I believe to be the truth. It is ulitmately up to him what he wishes to believe.

you can't blame someone for not being willing to leap into the abyss with you

why not, they are more than willing to jump into it with everyone else. (sarcasm)

like the first thing, this is just silly. buying science takes no faith at all. i have tons of evidence, and so do you. you buy quantum mechanics because it is what provided the background in which computers were engineered. since your computer clearly functions as predicted, that provides you with evidence and reason for your belief, and, as such, you don't need faith. the big bang theory is believed because it is the consequence of the application of the same physics that we use to design computers. since it works so well here, as in every time, we have some good reason to think it will work everywhere. we could be wrong, in which case we would discard that theory for whatever gave us better explanatory and predictive capabilities. no faith at all is requires. and i certainly don't need faith to believe that i love someone. all i do is ask, "jim, do you love this person?" check how i feel, and there it is. to say that my love for someone requires faith is the same as saying that my knowledge that i'm in pain requires faith. the fact that i feel the pain is the thing that qualifies the thing in question as even being pain in the first place. the phenomenal qualities of pain and love are what qualify them as such. it does not in any way require an act of faith.

once again... I stopped listening/reading after you called me silly!

j/k... in this case I believe you to be wrong. There is no scientific evidence that clearly proves the big bang theory (widely discounted), evolution (missing link), or any number of other scientific theories that have been formed from someone's best guess (hypothesis). Evolution alone, takes a large amount of faith for me to believe that we were once primates or as in some cases, fish! The fact is that many scientific beliefs are not fact at all but rather someone else's belief.

Bottom line: I don't think for a minute that God needs me to defend him or convince someone else that he exist. He is more than capable of doing that on his own. I believe that he's given each of us a desire to seek out the truth (God) and the only thing I can do is expose others to that truth. The only tools that I have to do that is the scriptures which are alive in my life and have proven infallible in every instance where I have applied them to my life and the evidence of his miracle which is my changed life.

I come here to sharpen my tools and at the same time offer people a different look at what they've been told is truth.

Sorry if that seems silly to you dead Jim. I find nothing at all silly in the fact that people's eternal destinations are at stake because of their lack of knowledge about the Truth.

[David]

Originally Posted by wizardmt70

Let me tell you about Science...

Pluto is a planet... no, it's not a planet... maybe it's a planet... could be a planet... it's a planet... no, it's not a planet......

Science is great if you believe in that type of stuff. ; )

pluto being a planet or not really has nothing to do with the big bang. or religion. there simply isn't an absolute definition of what a planet is.

pluto is really small, and it's orbit is irregular, so they don't know whether or not to call it a planet or a really large comet. ; )

Besides, how is arguing about what to call pluto relivant to the theory of the big bang?
If they wanted to change it to "the explosion of particles" then it would still me the same thing. The theory wouldn't change at all. The theory would still be just as plausable no matter what it was called.

Just like Pluto is still Pluto whether or not it's called a planet.

[wizardmt70]

I never said it was relevant to the big bang theory. Wasn't the point I was trying to make.

[dead jim]

in this case I believe you to be wrong. There is no scientific evidence that clearly proves the big bang theory (widely discounted), evolution (missing link), or any number of other scientific theories that have been formed from someone's best guess (hypothesis). Evolution alone, takes a large amount of faith for me to believe that we were once primates or as in some cases, fish! The fact is that many scientific beliefs are not fact at all but rather someone else's belief.

here you're just mistaken. the big bang theory is not widely discounted. within cosmology it is the dominant paradigm. the same goes for evolutionary theory. suggesting there is a "missing link" just shows you're not really clear on what the theory is about. i mean, this is something that applies to life in general, not just us, and we have massive, MASSIVE amounts of data that bolsters the theory. seriously, evolutionary theory is the paradigm through which all of biology is seen. gene theory requires it. our study of medicines for various viruses requires it. everything we currently do relating to biology relies upon this. now, does any of this prove the theory. no, but nothing proves any theory. science isn't the kind of thing that gets proven. proofs apply to formal languages like math and various formal logics. nothing in the natural world can be proven.
again, there is no faith involved in any of this. faith is accepting something without good reason. that's the whole point. we have great reasons for accepting this stuff, and, if better reasons came along to ditch it, we would. there's no faith involved.
seriously, before you say these kinds of things you need to do some research within the field you're commenting upon. i know you haven't because of the things you say (of course, this doesn't just apply to you on this board, nor does it only apply to the theists here; i'm not picking on you because you believe in God at all). i think if you found out what the big bang theory was really about, you would see that it's not magic at all. it's a big "duh." as far as evolution goes, perhaps you should find out what the theory is actually about before condemning it. the whole "missing link" thing is a non-problem. if you understood the theory you would get how suggesting that there is anything of that kind really, really misses what's going on. does that mean you can't question it? of course not. there are unresolved issues. but if you're interested in bringing those out, you need to understand what it is you're talking about.

oh, and we didn't come from primates; we are primates. here's how we are classified: kingdom - animalia; phylum - chordata; class - mammalia; order - primates; family - hominidae; genus - homo; species - sapiens; (and in some classifications) subspecies - sapiens (this would make up homo sapiens sapiens, as opposed to homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

[wizardmt70]

science isn't the kind of thing that gets proven.

just :shocked:

faith is accepting something without good reason

disagree again... I have lots of good reason to have faith, namely what God has done in my life.

Hebrews 11:1
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

you need to do some research within the field you're commenting upon.

agreed... this goes both ways though... (I'm well aware that you've already stated that you know more than I about Christianity but this is for the others that may read this) ; )

kingdom - animalia; phylum - chordata; class - mammalia; order - primates; family - hominidae; genus - homo; species - sapiens; (and in some classifications) subspecies - sapiens (this would make up homo sapiens sapiens, as opposed to homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

this classification is based on what.... Science? (rhetorical and me just being a smart butt)

looks as if we just disagree.

I still love ya... and so does Jesus!

[EndUnknown]

Originally Posted by wizardmt70

just :shocked:

actually hes right. science just disproves things, and science chooses what it deems most likely.

I love science, specifically chemistry, and the only thing in science i disagree with is evolution, it just doesn't seem likely to me.

[dead jim]

disagree again... I have lots of good reason to have faith, namely what God has done in my life.

then you aren't believing because of faith, and you're legitimizing the belief that God does not exist if your life has been terrible. you don't want to take that route. it would mean that no one should believe in God if they can't point to some particular thing He has done in their life, and that would be easy for much of the suffering masses out there.
take the time to examine the very quote you gave and highlighted: "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." having a hope is not evidence, not good reason. that is why certainty of such is called faith. if i have a hope that i can fly without evidence, and i am sure of such because of my hope, i doubt you would say that is good reason to believe i can fly. similarly, if i am certain of things i cannot see, for example the existence of elves, it is doubtful that you are going to think there is good reason for my certainty. on the contrary, there is no good reason for it, and, if i hold these beliefs, i believe such only on the basis of faith.
don't take my word for this; go ask your minister. i am certain he will back me up. you're simply mistaken here.

(I'm well aware that you've alrea