What Is Your Christianity?

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by JPaul@5 October 2003 - 02:26
Billy

I hear what you say, however I disagree with it.

The article in it's simples form states that it can be shown that the universe we live in had a beginning and it will have an end. Further that time as we know it within the universe started at the creation of the universe.

As we have agreed, there can be no effect without a cause. Since the universe exists there must be a cause, but as time started with the universe, then the cause must be outwith time.

I believe that the cause was God, you do not, fair enough. What do you believe the cause was. I do not think that turtles all the way down would be a reasonable argument.

I think what you miss here is that "universal" time started at the beginning of the universe, not necessarily time itself.

[IF the universe had a beginning, the big bang would be the theory of choice for most scientists. However, as has been pointed out here by others, there are other, newer theories, superstrings being one of them, which would do away with the necessity for a "big bang".

You still haven't answered my previous question to you, so I'll ask again: Do you believe god created the universe in 6 days, or do you believe he started the big bang, and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of physics?

[J'Pol]

Clocker,

In my opinion todays science goes towards proving that the Universe is unlikely to have self created. Given that it started at a point and will end at a point then there must be a "creator".

My belief is that it is God, others believe differently, I would be interested in their explanation. However the position that the universe just came into being with no external influence is untenable.

With regard to the faces of God, not only do we all show different face to each other. The same face is perceived by all of us differently. I see you as an erudite and eloquent person. However a truly intelligent and educated person may merely see you as a reasonable averagely bright chap.

The eye of the beholder is very important.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@4 October 2003 - 18:36
Very interesting all.
As I really can't adhere to either side I have so far just monitored from the sidelines. A couple of thoughts, however...

There seems to be trend for the non-believers to use science as the tool to dispute the existence of God.
For some reason, the believers seem willing to accept this as a basis of debate.

What happened to the "leap of faith"? The unquestioning acceptance of the belief in a God/Higher Power? Is this, in and of itself, not the final word in the discussion?

Hobbes, not to nit-pick or anything, but...

3. To me, a true religion should reflect God. Since God is the same thing everywhere, at everytime is, all people should see him the same way.

Can you even make this claim about yourself? Humans are multifaceted, we certainly do not show the same face to all people all the time so why would you expect a God to?

God is a perfect sphere, he looks the same from all angles. Gotcha!

Seriously, we show different facets to different people as it reflects our motives. God should have no motives, he is pure.

At any rate, even if he has a dynamic, multifaceted personality, anyone who gets to know him well, will see these different traits. Each culture should have had an equal opportunity to do so.


In my view, science and God are mutually exclusive entities. Religions are only threatened by science if they hold literal interpretations about creation.

Science has no interest in dispproving God, that would suck, actually.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by clocker@4 October 2003 - 18:36
...There seems to be trend for the non-believers to use science as the tool to dispute the existence of God...

I'm keeping out of this one. But because I've been awake for 35 hours straight, I'm thinking in cliched phrases (nor can I remember the ASCII code for that "e").

Absense of proof does not equal proof of absense.

[clocker]

JPaul,
I shall use you as an example as you have been active in the Christianity threads and very forthcoming about your religious leanings/beliefs.

I am somewhat surprised that at some point you didn't just say " The scientific
/logical proofs for or against the existence of God are irrelevant. I believe, and that is, in and of itself, all the reason I need."
Essentially irrefutable, in my book.
Isn't that in fact, the basis of most religions? The willingness to accept without evidence, the suspension of logic and the embracing of the unknowable?
Isn't religion, at it's core, a matter of the heart, not the mind? If so, then quibbling about the (theoretical) beginnings of the Universe seems not only pointless, but actually sort of demeaning.
To me, it is reminiscent of trying to quantify "great art" ( pick your own example here)- you either love it or you don't, but trying to explain why you feel the way you do is hopeless...the vocabulary just doesn't exist to encompass the vagaries of the heart. Even sillier is to try and convert/dissuade another to your point of view. You can certainly expound on the aspects that you find attractive and even attempt to provide the context from which you view the piece ( or the religion), but in the end isn't "I believe" really the only, and final answer?

[hobbes]

JPaul,

This thread has taken the topic of creation and dissected out two distinct elements.

1.God
2.Religion


God would be defined as the creator of the universe who has always been.

Religions are man-made entities which hope to promote
1. A philosophy which allows people to live in harmony
2. A hope for salvation, eternal life, or something good

In our discussion today, it seems to me that you are in agreement that God is unknowable, if he exists he is outside of our space-time.

I have inferred that your acceptance of Catholicism is based on #1 above and you understand that it cannot be expected to be more correct than any other religion in knowing God.

To me, it would render any disagreement about his existence moot. You say there is a God because it makes more sense to you than no God. I see it the other way. Regardless, we both agree that we cannot truly know God and we must make a personal descision on what is the "right" way to live. You have aligned yourself with the Catholic church (#1 above).

But this seems to leave us at the same point when it comes to death and what awaits us. We both don't know. Am I wrong, do you accept #2, I am thinking, not based on what has been discussed today.

JPaul what do you think awaits us after physical death? (or anybody)

[ilw]

Billy your theory of pre-universe time is, i think a fairly unique one, perhaps you should write a paper on it. Personally i think the pre universe period is basically not within our ability to understand, it simply doesn't follow physics or maths, as JPaul pointed out there is no causality without time. I could believe that something or someone sparked off the creation of our universe, however, i find it hard to believe such a being knows/cares about our existence let alone intended it and as such i doubt that such an entity would want/believe in worship. Equally i could believe in a circular universe (in terms of time) where something in this universe in the future could cause the annihilation of this universe and cause this universe to again be created (ie a paradox loop where we have had this conversation an infinite number of times). However, I think its going to be a long long time before.
(sorry JPaul if this next bit sounds like i'm attacking you in any way its not meant that way)
I dislike that some religions/religious people try and incorporate scientific facts that go against what their religion says into their beliefs, to me it seems like their slowly backing off what their religion is telling them as facts are proved to them. Instead of trying to start blank and generating theories, they're starting with something they know to be wrong and fiddling it together with reality.

[ilw]

About the life after death thing, my opinion on it can be summed up quite simply by pointing out that its an oxymoron.

[Rat Faced]

God would be defined as the creator of the universe who has always been.

Lets take this further.

All the wars on this tiny globe, over how to worship him/her/it........



If they created the universe, then what type of wars are we in for if there ever is a 1st contact.........its their universe as well.

If they dont look like us; then the "created in his image" will be a huge thing.....




Im so glad i dont have to think about this stuff and justify my beliefs to anyone accept me.

I cant think of 1 church that is still the same as when it was set up, and presumably the other religions are the same.

So IF, "God" told em how it should be set up.......they've already moved away from the formula...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 October 2003 - 20:08


Im so glad i dont have to think about this stuff and justify my beliefs to anyone accept me.

I wholeheartedly concur with the latter part of your sentiment, whilst chosing to take a different position with regard to the former.