Is there a connection between Islam, Judaism and Christianity

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

It's like Miller but lighter. Hard to believe I know.

The whole concept of light beer is kinda hard to believe....

Miller Lite - tastes great, less filling...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[mikempb 0]

Hey all, I havent been in here in a super long time, but this topic caught my attention... I dont want to start rambling off hrs of information to prove my case, but maybe this lead will help some in this forum.. It is some of the worlds best christian apologetics, I have been studying for a while. They are Frank Turek, and William Lane Creig. This isnt a post to convert any athiests Im not really interested in doing that, unless they come to me, but it shows you why it takes more faith to be an "athiest" than a "thiest".

[Marinus 0]

Quote

it takes more faith to be an "athiest" than a "thiest".

We live in a universe in which God doesn't seem to exist. An atheist only makes draws the logical conclusion that God seems to be totally and completely absent because he doesn't exist. According to how you define your atheism, you might need a microscopic bit of faith to make it work (most probably not, btw, but I'm not completely sure about that) . But atheism that's defined like: "I've no reason whatsoever to assume that God exists", requires no faith at all. I'm no atheist, btw, but I come close enough to feel related to them

[mikempb 0]

To clarify just a bit, what I mean by needing more faith to be an athiest is that you have to believe that Something came from Nothing ( begining of the universe) that has never happened before thefore there is no proof it can be done, for example why doesnt orange juice just appear in front of me spontaneously? Its silly to suppose it could so how can all matter just do it?

[wmw999 2,145]

I'm not an atheist, but I really don't see why it takes more faith to be an atheist (even the deity-denying type, as opposed to the deity-ignoring type) than it does to be a theist (or Christian).

They know what the evidence of physics points at; there are gaps, and they're OK with that, and with trying to figure out how to fill those gaps with deduced information (i.e. built on physical evidence and math), rather than with spiritual information (i.e. built on texts and stories).

Math has a means for proving things; science has a means for at least increasing the certainty of conjectures (remember that you can only prove things wrong, not right). Religion cannot be proven, and evidence is based on individual anecdotal experiences. There isn't a language that can prove that. There may be someday, but there isn't now.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

There may be someday

Hm. Sounds like a leap of faith.

[wmw999 2,145]

Quote

Sounds like a leap of faith

Well, I am a skydiver...

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mikempb 0]

You bring up a great point... Noone can prove God or religion. I hope I didnt give that impression. However I believe with evidence through a cosmological, moral, and design argument there is enough evedence beyond a reasonable doubt for theism. If you were on a jury that would be enough evidence to send someone to the chair.

[wmw999 2,145]

Maybe if you were on a jury you'd vote that way. I wouldn't. And, again, I'm not an atheist, or even an agnostic (at least I don't think so). But I think that religious and spiritual beliefs are intensely personal, and that we don't know enough right now to say that there is a definitive right answer.

Bible-as-the-only-truth not withstanding.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mikempb 0]

Just for the record I am definatley not trying to convince you or anyone else one way or the other, just showing people out there that think religious people are following blindly that there is so much more to take into account. I didnt think there was enough to support my beliefs without even using the bible, but I think there is.

[Marinus 0]

First I know the basics of the Big Bang Theory, but I'll be the first to admit my brain performs a x/0 if I think to hard about it but:

To say God is the cause of the universe only relocates the problem, because God should have a cause too. Besides that, there's no proof for the existence God, so the cause, if there is one, could be anything. Saying Goddidit isn't bad science, it's anti-science. "I don't know (yet)" on the other hand is a valid answer.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

If you were on a jury that would be enough evidence to send someone to the chair.

Ironically if the universe is a crime, and God is the perp then according to your analogy God is (as good as) dead.

Other then that I may point out that the only good way to solve a crime, is to approach the crime in a scientific way. Not in a religious or philosophical way, and right now science hasn't provided us with a suspect in the Case of the Mysterious Universe, let alone a suspect called God.

[mikempb 0]

Quote:To say God is the cause of the universe only relocates the problem, because God should have a cause too
Im not relocating the problem, I'm solving it:
Premise 1:
Anything that came into being had to have a cause
premise 2:
the universe had a begining
premise3:
therefore the universe had a cause
so logically I conclude that:
1) anything that came into being had a cause
2)God did not have a begining
3) therefore God did not have a cause
So Im not redirecting my problem if I provide a reason to support my claim . you see, if God had a cause, then that cause would be superior to God which would then make that cause God...

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Im not relocating the problem, I'm solving it:

No, you're not. I can claim the universe was created because an eternal pan-dimensional turtle farted, and this would be as valid as your God-hypothesis.

Quote

Premise 1:
Anything that came into being had to have a cause
premise 2:
the universe had a begining
premise3:
therefore the universe had a cause

The universe might not have a cause. If the universe is the effect, the cause of the universe should precede the effect, but since time itself originated at the same moment as the universe did, in an event we often refer to as the Big Bang, there is no "before the Big Bang" and thus no time for a cause to precede the universe. So everything that had a beginning must have a cause, but the universe began at the beginning of time. I'm in no way an expert in the field, and just thinking about it makes my head hurt, but this might be the exception on the normal rules of causality. If there is no time before an effect, there is no time for a cause to exist.

Quote

so logically I conclude that:
1) anything that came into being had a cause
2)God did not have a begining
3) therefore God did not have a cause
So Im not redirecting my problem if I provide a reason to support my claim . you see, if God had a cause, then that cause would be superior to God which would then make that cause God...

Making something up (God) isn't supporting a claim. You have to prove that God exists, you have to prove that he has no beginning and only then you have a valid argument.

[mikempb 0]

There is no proving god exists, I admit that I've used the term before and thats evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.. I'm not asking an athiest to prove to me god doesnt exist because that is equally unattainable.. You hit the nail on the head by the way!! I agree time didnt exist before the universe because Time , Space, and Matter all need to exist together or none will, according to Einstein. To me the evidence leads ( not proves ) that a timeless, immaterial, space-less, all powerfull force must have caused the universe. You see if there is a "designer" he must be beyond the Natural Law

[DanG 1]

Quote

You see if there is a "designer" he must be beyond the Natural Law

That one little word, "if," is the root of your problem.

- Dan G

[mikempb 0]

"IF" isnt the cause of my problem because as I said I'm ok with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that will never get rid of the IF. Think of all the decisions you make everyday, big and small, you never have 100% proof of everything involved. (EX) jumping, the plane has been maitained well, but you have no idea what is happining with all the parts, your chute is packed by your packer you didnt watch him but he/she has done it many times before, so the evidence is in favor of things going well.
You stake your life on very little proof, why do expect a different standard in only this one area??

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I'm not asking an atheist to prove to me god doesnt exist because that is equally unattainable.

The burden of proof lies with the one who claims. Religious folk claimed there is a God, so they should provide the proof. Since the religious folk don't provide evidence for God, the atheists can reject their God-hypothesis without evidence. They/we win.

Quote

To me the evidence leads ( not proves ) that a timeless, immaterial, space-less, all powerful force must have caused the universe. You see if there is a "designer" he must be beyond the Natural Law

I don't completely reject the possibility of a creator, however If such an creator exist I can't understand its nature nor its motives. So I think it's rather... uhm... bold to say anything about the hypothetical creator. Even calling it "creator" is bold. and why did he create the universe? maybe it's an artwork on the wall of it's 23 dimensional house, maybe it's a game or maybe it's just a xxhdhuiweohovaol for its fpakpjqoaofn.

[DanG 1]

I don't think you took my meaning. You use as evidence (circumstantial, to be sure) the apparent lack of causation for the Big Bang. You use this evidence to help prove your case for an entity that doesn't require causation. But even in evoking this supposed evidence, you have to say, "if." In essence, you're saying, "if there is a creator, then He must have created the Big Bang." You're assuming your conclusion, not proving it.

- Dan G

[mikempb 0]

Congrats on winning! I disagree with only proof comming from my end, here's why... You too ( more directed toward athiest) have faith. Your faith is in something came from nothing as much as non believers dont like calling that faith, it is, just not in a creator. You too have the burden of proving your stand.. I know you made other points but I'd really like to tackle this head on first..So How, and or when has something ever come from nothing( not to put words in your mouth, please explain your way)

[mikempb 0]

Hey dan, I'm assuming my conclusion using reasoning, to not prove my point , but to point out reasonable explanations for a possible answer.( By the way, I didnt say the universe didnt have a cause, quite the opposite, the universe did have a cause, just the designer behind it did'nt)

[DanG 1]

Quote

By the way, I didnt say the universe didnt have a cause, quite the opposite, the universe did have a cause, just the designer behind it did'nt

Can't you see you're just moving the problem one step back? You're assuming that cause and effect have to stop somewhere. You have no reason to assume this, you're just taking it as a given. Then you're assuming that it stops with God. Again, you have no reason to assume this, you just take it as fact.

Here's how I read your argument:

Axioms:
1. Time, and therefore cause and effect started at the Big Bang.
2. There is some entity that does not require causation.
3. That entity is God.

Logic:
1. Our universe requires a cause.
2. God must be that cause (see above).
3. God exists.
QED

- Dan G

[mikempb 0]

Im not moving the argument back, IF this statement which i'm copying from my earlier one to Marinus is true:"I agree time didnt exist before the universe because Time , Space, and Matter all need to exist together or none will, according to Einstein. To me the evidence leads ( not proves ) that a timeless, immaterial, space-less, all powerfull force must have caused the universe. You see if there is a "designer" he must be beyond the Natural Law "
Is this proof, NO, does it logically makes sense
if there was a creator he would have to be beyond natural law ?
There are many arguments for the case of a designer, not just cosmological which I didnt even get into the intellegent design aspect of. sorry for the long message but one more point... If you saw a sandcastle on the beach would you think the wind did that? No it was from an intellegent designer( a person) natural law causes disorder not order, the same case can be made for our universe, proof, no, just logical observartion leading to possible explanations.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Your faith is in something came from nothing as much as non believers dont like calling that faith, it is, just not in a creator.

Faith is by it's definition believing in something without evidence, and I don't do that. I don't *believe* something came from nothing during the Big Bang. Actually there's a lot of agnosticism concerning my views on what happened in the very beginning. Do I think it's possible? With my basic knowledge of it, I think it might be possible for something to come from nothing. On the other hand, since time began as the same moment something began, in a way there was never nothing for something to come from, and in a way there was always something. Or to be short: I don't really know if something ever came from nothing. I don't think that could be called "faith" with the best will of the world.

Quote

So How, and or when has something ever come from nothing( not to put words in your mouth, please explain your way)

Mathematically it's easy to prove: 0 = -1+1. I think quarks pop into existence from nothing in opposite pairs all the time. Problem is that they aren't very stable. So nothing split in anti-matter and matter (and probably in X anti-X too, whatever X may be), and for some reason anti-matter seized to exist so matter became stable.

Well, in short: my knowledge of the beginning isn't all that, and while I've some ideas about it based on the things I do understand in the end I just don't know. This is a valid position btw, and really doesn't prove God.

[Marinus 0]

Intelligent Design/Creationism is religion, not science and it's stupid to begin with. To decide if the universe is designed intelligently you need to know why it was created. If it was created for humanity to live in or to support life, like creationists like to think the universe is the most epic fail ever.