Argue to Christianity
 

My roommate and I have been having this discussion all night. Is it possible to argue logically that Christianity is true? I say that if you don't assume Christianity it is impossible to argue more than that the world was created. She says that I am limiting God to something I can argue away because I don't want to believe. Any thoughts?

Any one who can argue this to livia regina to the extent that she is satisfied in under four hours I am buying a drink. *sighs exhausted sigh*

Religious beliefs, outside of the material world, are not necessarily logically arguable points. They cannot be proven or disproven, and so no, they can't be "argued away". They can either be believed in or not believed in, and it's as simple as that.

Ding. You can't logic away God any more than you can... err, do the opposite of logic-ing him away. What would you call that anyway?

Your roommate is correct, as is Suave. Which is a problem with the views some take on Christianity. Religion is something that is intangible. When we think that we are having a good grasp on what exactly IS God, or a deity, the afterlife, heaven, hell, whatnot, we REALLY have barely scratched the surface to what lies beneath. Religion is something that is in place for an explanation to that which is unexplainable to humans. So when you call something a given truth, or fail to accept all other possibilities in religions, then you are attempting to put limitations on that which is not able to be harnessed. Ill compare to something else: What if no one questioned the flatness of the earth before Columbus went on a voyage to discover a way to the East by going West?

Always keep your mind open to other perspectives on religious viewpoints. Just think... it may seem radical to you now, but at least the earth isnt still flat, right?

Right now you KNOW that Chrisitanity is correct. What happens later down the road?

You only need ONE answer in the affirmative to really make christianity true.

I have only thought of 2 questions that need that answer in order to make a satisfactory proof.
1: Did Jesus Christ really die (not a coma or anything funny) and then get resurrected 3 days later?
2: Is Christ really the son of God?


Most of Christianity hangs upon either of these 2 questions.
To me, the second question would seem to be the harder of the 2 to prove, but one could assume it if the first question was proven.

the only problem willey, is that the questions beg more. what does ressurection mean? physical, bodily re-animation? spiritual acension?

i don't think you need the second question. trinitarianism isn't a beleif of the early church, and so by asking it that way, you're saying that James, Peter and Paul weren't Christian. You might ask the followup question is "is Christ the Messiah of God?" but that's already pretty well covered in the first, IMO.

it's simply not a logic discussion. and i'm quite happy that way.

There are certainly many arguments for the existence of God -- if we're allowed to assume the world was created, you've pretty much got one right there. I think most of the arguments are valid, but they all have sufficiently dubious premises such that one is by no means required, rationally speaking, to accept them. (I.e., if you reject the comsmological argument, I don't have a prima facie case for saying you're being irrational). However, none of them will get you Christianity, except for the Ontological Argument and Pascal's Wager, and for both of those you would need a long extension of the traditional argument, making the whole thing even more dubitable.

Much of the problem hangs on the fact that Christianity is a strongly historical religion, and it's difficult to prove historical facts by means of philosophical argument. What's important to look at the evidence (and in this case, at least, it's unfair to toss out some of the evidence with the claim "We know miracles don't happen"), and decide to what extent the evidence confirms or disconfirms Christianity.

Moreover, belief isn't purely a matter of choice. So no matter how compelling the arguments, it's entirely possible to lack the emotional response that goes with what we call a "deeply held" belief. C. S. Lewis makes the point that, while they can serve to remove intellectual barriers to belief, intellectual arguments rarely, if ever, actually lead to belief in themselves.

Some links to relevant threads:
A brief discussion of the Ontological Argument
An inconclusive discussion of the evidence for Christ's divinity is here.

(Edit: This, to MG)
Not quite.
'Resurrection' as I've used it is the literal sense that is used in the NT.
Arising from the dead. If it was the same body that was put in the tomb or if it was magically re-created some way, but essentially having the same person stand before you 3 days after their death.

If that is true, then all the accounts by those people who saw it are true and you'd need to believe in the rest of their advice for the sake of your soul.

As for son of God, you'd need proof of which sense he was using. Either the literal son of god, god made flesh or some weird son of god way.

Essentially, you'd need to go back in time, visit with him and put a video recorder on timelapse in his tomb.

My point is less of what questions to ask to prove Christianity is true, but to first ask yourself, which version of Christianity do you want to be true.
If you were able to go back to the root of it all, then you might know for sure, but if you rely on the undivine decisions of a few people who lived centuries afterwards, then you're a bit out of luck.

Have patience. Someday you'll leave this mortal plane and you'll have the answer to whether you toiled in vain or not.



Or not. ;)

"Logic" doesn't "prove" anything but logical consistency based on a priori assumptions - which can be any damn thing someone wants to assume, in front.

So, no, logic isn't the tool for persuasion of realistic or even sensible views on religion.

Science and logic can't absolutely disprove the existence of god, but they can't absolutely disprove the existence of Santa Claus either.

Just because you've never seen Santa Claus doesn't mean he doesn't exist, same for god.

So yes, god and Santa Claus are possibilities. But neither has enough evidence to convince me to stop masturbating or buy presents. Hume wrote:

'It must be admitted to be a reasonable request if we ask those who would have us put faith in the actual occurrence of interruptions of the order of nature, to produce evidence in favour of their view, not only equal but superior in weight to that [evidence] which leads us to adopt ours'

Supernatural phenomena require extraordinary evidence. If you want to convince me that an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible man controls our every actions, I'm going to need more evidence than the hearsay testimony of a 2000 year old dead man.

Literal sense? Which one?

I don't mean that speciously. No text is self-interpreting. In the first Gospel written, Mark, there is no appearance story. Two are tacked on much later... Some of the stories seem to point to some etheral apparaition. He walks through walls, etc. But, he also eats some broiled fish and has Thomas feel his wounds.

Simply, there are Christian theologies that both reference a physical re-animation, and a spiritual appearance/precense.


The point isn't what happens in the tomb. what matters is that on Easter, it is empty.

In the end, i severely doubt that the Truth would in any sense "prove" that Christian practice as understood today is True. capitol letters intentional...

I'm not inclined to believe that the Holy mystery is reducable to a proof, were we to have the right evidence.

Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing.

Livia Regina, do you not believe in God, or do you not believe in anything "supernatural" persay. There's a difference in not believing in Christianity and not believing that (a) God(dess) exists. I think that in the case of religion, everyone believes in one thing or another. The problem is that people get hung up on disproving what everyone else believes to make their beliefs the only ones that matter. I think that while having philosophical discussions are intriguing, you are better to just listen and learn what other people think, but not try to change them. And sometimes you just have to let the conversation go. For myself, I do not believe in organized religion. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in some sort of higher power. My boyfriend, on the other hand, doesn't believe in anything (or so he says). He just lives in the here and now and does not think about the intangible.

To answer your question, you can't prove that God exists, just as you can't really disprove it. There will be people who will believe what they will either way, no matter how much "evidence" you have. That being said, what does it matter?

Actually, religion is pretty tangible. Religions are surrounded by accepted beliefs and practices. Now, are those beliefs tangible?... that's another story.

The added bolded goes to illustrate the impossibility of seriously discussing something such as the nature of the universe or God without falling into abstract metaphor. We can't know anything but what we experience, and everything else metaphorical, asthetic thinking.

I've heard that before, but to me it seems that it is also a very powerful social apparatus.

Actually, the Greeks and Egyptians not only knew that the Eart was round hundreds of years before Columbus's voyage, they even knew things such as the circumference of the Earth.

Again, this illustrates metaphorical thinking. You are comparing making assumptions with the unknowable characteristics of the nature of the universe with that which was <i>supposedly</i> previously unknown. Comparisons are a helpful way of thinking, but it is important to be careful how one constructs metaphors.

Because the Earth never was flat, right?

Well, it seems apparent to me that eventually everyone dies...

I believe that we were created by a more powerful being than ourselves. Because I was raised in a Christian culture, I am inclined to believe that this powerful being was a god.

I'm not looking for a proof God exists, I already have my own ideas on that. I am looking for a logical argument that Christianity is the true path. It matters because I like to be right or at least get as close to the truth as possible. Besides, I think the discussion is fascinating. I am not looking to convert people but I am willing to be converted if someone can give me a compelling argument. That is what my roomie was trying to do last night.

This is why I have trouble with Christianity. No-one can decide which part of it is real.

I'm not ever going to claim myself as a philosopher or theologian, but I think it would.
It would answer for once and for all whether the body was removed, whether it came back to life (the resurrection I'm talking about) or whether it just stayed there and the story is made up.

And that's the whole issue for me. Christian practice as 'understood' today is nothing like the thing that the real Christ taught. Pity, I'm sure he was a nice guy.


I agree with you that the mystery shouldn't really require proof.
If Faith is the cornerstone of the christian religion, then what is achieved when a sure knowledge replaces that faith? I think it just makes a greater division between those that have believed christianity and those who wanted to believe something else.
How much derision do the evolutionists already heap on the creationists because of the scientific inaccuracies in the creation stories. It doesn't make the evolutionists any better as people.

It would be possible if Christianity was true...

The idea had crossed my mind.

if everyone agreed perfectly, i don't think we'd stand a chance. God is still speaking in this world. we would be foolish not to listen. it is our task to discern, to listen, to try to work towards building communities, relationships, and lives that somehow point to God's truth and love. That the task is difficult and contentious is not a sign of failure. we rarely agree on what human rights are, but few would say that that's a good reason to stop trying support some sense of them.

This is one of the few times when i take one Gospel at nearly total priority over the others. The appearance stories in Matt, Luke, Acts, and John are almost certainly late additions to the tradition. they are valuable to study, but i do not believe that they are a solid basis for doctrine. That the tomb is empty is the most basic declaration that death has been broken. The message that the followers who deserted Christ are to rejoin him in Galilee is the proclaimation of forgiveness that begins the Church. We who abandon God, who leave his Son to die on the accursed cross, are invited back to Him. Mark, in and of itself contains the doctrine necessary to preach the Good News. if we're really being honest with ourselves, the reason the tomb is empty is because he probably never made it there. the victims were left for the vultures and dogs. In spite of it all, we are told Christ is risen, we should not fear. We, his betrayers, are told that we are to rejoin him in Galilee and begin the work of ushering in the Kingdom.

Now explain this rationally, without very abstract metaphors. How can you explain the existence of God without an <i>a priori</i> belief in God and/or an <i>a priori</i> belief that the Bible is <b>literal</b> fact?

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true, nor that anything in the Bible is true. That is circular reasoning, and fundamentally flawwed logic. As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to logically discuss the existence of God. I read this as an emotive response that is lacking in reason outside of the scope of using the Bible as a fundamental book of truth because you say that the Bible is a fundamental book of truth.

Though poetic and highly asthetic, where's the substance behind the language? How can we have access to this world you're discussing without those fundamental assumptions that you're making?

Hmm. We will create a new term for the opposite of logic-ing away, and henceforth, this term shall be called "hootenannying". And yay, it was good, and they did drink of the one percent milk, and ate of the large goats.

I think it would be very difficult to argue logically that Christianity is true.
You would have to argue logically that there is a creator, and that creator is a god, and that god is the Jewish tribal god, and that god's son was Jesus. Most of us probably can't get past the first one or two.

The Christians I've discussed this with believe because that's the way they were brought up and they feel in their heart that it's the right path. Logic doesn't enter the picture.

It was. The Christian God specifically.

I'd say that the empty tomb just shows that somebody stole the body. You assume that Christianity is correct and you argue from that. Stop assuming that and argue up to it. For me it is a huge leap of fath to say that whatever created us was a god so I'm not likely to make the jump to Christianity any time soon. Can you make a logical argument for me to make that jump?

wow....one at time here, but it's great to see such an engaging debate. part of the problem is that i was writing in specific response to Willy Pete, and not thinking about the thread title. i'll link some things back now.

Take it as a literary document, for a while. then decide if it's something more. honestly, that's the only way i know how to do it. i always had a good command of bibilcal themes and stories. over time, i began to see news ways of inhabiting these spaces, and my conversion occured. use it to look at the world, and as yourself these questions:

this is taken from another thread and adapted:

Does this set of metaphors and ideas increase your understanding of life and relationship?
Does this set of metaphors and ideas retain a concern for intellectual egagement?
Does this set of metaphors and ideas have a deep ethical grounding?
Does this set of metaphors and ideas allow for reflection, and insist on self-critical examination?
Does this set of metaphors and ideas respond to life?

It's not a proof. but that is how i made my journey. i don't know if that would be useful for you, or anyone else. but i'd be more than happy to try to share anything i learned on the way.



i think i'd made it clear that logical argumentation won't go more than halfway. logic won't prove God is an impossibility. beyond that? not much. it's equally unhelpful to non-theistic philosophies, too. logic is necessary with in a beleif, self consistancy, etc... but getting in from the outside isn't a logic thing. so if this is all threadjack, i apologize. my intention was to point to the non-logical path that could get there.

Following JD Crossen, as earlier noted in my arguements, it's unlikely Jesus' body every got to a tomb to be stolen. Standard operating proceedure was to leave the body to the scavenging birds and dogs. Read Mark again, carefully...and try not to assume the other Gospels. Ressurection has almost nothing to do with the corpse.

Such an arguement does not exist. i asked for one for many years. i should find some of my old postings at another board...it might be an interesting contrast. As i talked about above, the only way *I* know in to Christian faith is to live in the symbols and ideas for a while, and see if they resonate with something with in you.

So how do you get from metaphors and ideas to a belief that this is more than a literary document and represents some sort of literal truth?

Neverminding that the resurrection part of the Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus's death, it seems clear that the metaphorical value of the tomb being empty is much greater than a literal understanding of it.

So, are you saying then, that you take the metaphorical ideas and then change them into your identity? What is the value of taking the leap from looking for wisdom and messages in the text, and then changing that into the foundation of meaning by treating it as literal fact?

Personally, I don't think anyone has it completely right. And I don't think that the point of religion is to be "right". Being "right" is relative. It's the same thing as being "normal", there's no such thing. Anyways, I think that life is just about being a good person. If there is another plane of existence (such as a heaven), than I don't believe that a god who is s'posed to be just would not let people in just because they weren't "right". Who's to say that just because you believe one thing you deserve to go to heaven any more than someone who led a good life.
If I would live by some sort of dogmatic creed, I'd have to say that I would try to follow the teachings of Christ. That is NOT to say Christianity. I think a lot of the Bible and other things they teach are bullshit (again, my personal opinion for MYSELF). But have you ever just read the RED print? That is s'posedly the word of God or Christ. And it is very similar to the teachings of Buddah. What he says is more about how you should be as a person, about your SOUL. Nowhere does it say that you shouldn't eat meat on certain days or all those other random things that people do.
So, I guess I'd have to say, in my opinion, the closest thing to being right so far is the Gnostic Gospels

Live in it for a while. I hate to be a broken record, but i can't really give a better answer. I'm not suggesting "Try Christianity for a Day" but rather that like any worldview, Christianity can't be explained. It can be shown, demonstrated, and elaborated. But it will never look the same outside in and inside out. i'm also willing to bet my last paycheck that you're using "literal" in a way that has almost no relationship to what i'm talking about.

And ye shall know them by their fruits. Matt 7:16. That's all that list is supposed to do.


That's wrong. The story of the empty tomb in Mark is written at about 70 CE, 40 years plus. Matt and Luke are after Mark, no later than 85 CE. John, the last cannonical gospel, is written *no* later than 150 CE, a little over 100 years later. It is far more likely that John is closer to 90 CE. Those guesses aren't even that "conservative." Right wingers will say earlier, some liberals later. But they are very moderate, and have pretty good basis in evidence. Mark is being dated by references to the Temple destruction, John is based on a text fragment. Hundreds of years is off by a LONG way. Oh...Paul writes his letters in 50's CE, and refers to the ressurection constantly. Regardless of if these men, and in the case of "Mark" probably a woman, actually saw the events they record, it shows that in the movement at the time, the ressurection was the common theology.

You say metaphorical, i say theological. The honest truth is that it's damn hard to say what ressurection is. but the message is more important than the media, IMO. Easter happened, regardless of if a body was re-animated. People began experiencing Christ risen, and record that powerfully. I have no doubt *something* happened.

When did i ever say literal? It's a language. It lets you say things that you can't in secular languages. It gives you ideas and constructs that allow you to think about things that had been sighs too deep for words (Rom 8:26). It's a deep part of my idenity becuase it's what i had thought about, wordlessly and with frustration. It's a deep part of my idenity because it has brought me to realize the power and beauty of God's love for creation. It's a deep part of my idenity becuase it's given me whys when i had only known whats.

You're being rather vague. I understand that you feel something because of these beliefs that you've developed, but that's about it.

I'm referring to some of the extra stuff where they explain what happened after the Jesus showed up missing. As for Jesus being gone from the tomb, that's WIDE OPEN for interpretation.

Well, something was written down, something happened. I don't know how you can judge just what that is by the effects it had on people. My philosophical stance on historical events is that the meaning of historical events <i>changes</i> over time, and I think the death of Jesus is a good example of this. I don't think we have any access to what it really was like when Jesus died.

People in this day in age are widely misinformed and highly affected by that misinformation, that is <i>no proof</i> that their reactions are based something that actually happened (i.e. Iraq being behind 9/11). Reactions are reactions, they don't illustrate fact.

My fundamental argument with most religion is that many of the answers to questions about existence are to questions that cannot be answered. Additionally, I think those answers still are mired in absurdity that is much more convoluted than accepting that there are many things that we just cannot know fundamentally.

As for language... I understand the power of language, I'm a fan of literature and I'm a poet. I think one can respect literature and religions for the language used and the metaphors and stories of their mythologies. And it really is impossible to ignore religion (particularly Christianity) because the language pervades our society. As Flannery O'Conner says, we are haunted by Christianity at the least.

The problems I see with the language center around when the interpretations of the language go on from being recognized as semblances and are treated the same as the tangible situations around us now. I don't understand how you could come to a conclusion like, "It's a deep part of my idenity because it has brought me to realize the power and beauty of God's love for creation." via figurative/religious/metaphorical language by itself. There's something more than language that you've latched onto, and your belief in it transcends metaphor and reason. Kierkegaard would call this sort of transcendance absurd (and he appreciates it as a "knight of faith"). I have enough absurdity in my existence without leaping into more of it. I don't see why one would need an absurd ultimate meaning to go on living life... other animals certainly don't.

I'm going a little off topic, but it still relates. There is no logical explanation to believe in the stories of the Bible, though you can gain an absurd understanding of the universe through it that you can't get otherwise (except in other religions and beliefs that center around the same absurd understandings).

As a final note, please understand that I'm not using "absurdity" as a negative term, it is merely a descriptive term for the existential state of existing without essential meaning. I don't think that the absurd is negated by beliefs centered around ultimate meaning, but they are amplified by the lack of evidence and communication with the declared center of ultimate meaning.

It's a translation in to secular, and it doesn't always come through the best. I am trying, and i'll to be a little more specific as i discuss your comments on language.

[quoteI'm referring to some of the extra stuff where they explain what happened after the Jesus showed up missing. As for Jesus being gone from the tomb, that's WIDE OPEN for interpretation.[/quote]

Okay...the additions to Mark are late. but the appearances in Matt and Luke are orgininal to the texts, and show up only a little bit later. i don't think the fundamental arguement is changed. And yes, it is open to interpretation.

I think we can get a reasonable idea of some of the reactions amongst his followers. There seems to be broad agreement that in some way, Jesus is ressurected, and that they begin making this teaching. It's suggestive, not authoritative.

Agreed. Which is why i'm not a big "Elvis Lives" fan. there has to be something more to the story than just a claim. i talk about what that might be in my previous posts.


Agree, save one point. It is useless to pick an answer and stick with it unthinkingly. It is useful to chose a vocabulary and try to start talking and thinking about it. A faith that has lost curiousity, doubt, and wonder is a dead idol and rote obedience.

I'll get to the rest of the post when i return. There's some good stuff there, and i'd like a chance to think it through.

I just wanted to quick point out that this is not exactly Kierkegaard's use of the term. When he speaks of the absurdity of faith, he means that it doesn't make sense rationally, not that it doesn't have essential meaning. Credo quia absurdum est! (I believe because it's absurd.)

Yes, thanks, I was trying to hurry to say something that wasn't coming out right whilst making dinner. I was having a hard time describing my opinion at the same time as discussing Kierkegaard's work. You get the point though, thanks for the interjection.

okay...back after the campus christmas service, and some time to think.

To me, this is precisely the reason why we talk about them. i don't have many Answers, in an absolute and final sense. But, niether will i resign myself to simply not knowing. My faith life is the continued exploration of these questions, using the vocabulary and constructs of Christian practice. I find that by doing so, i am brought deeper in to the knowledge of the love of God for all creation. This, alone, is enough to justify my faith. That my seach might someday provide an "Answer" in this life or the next...is almost superfluous. If i wanted an asnwer, i'd say 42. I'm much more interested in the question.



One of the main reasons i'm a Christian. If i want to think theologically, all i have to do is pick up a book written in this culture. bright, soulful and gifted women and men have recorded their thoughts in this language for 2000 years, many thousand more in the Hebrew traditions. This wealth of language is one of the most precious gifts i have recieved.

Exactly. I'd offer no arguement to that. My language is trying to draw the line right up until the fuction hits error. Now, at that point there can be either God or the existentially absurd...but our math doesn't really cover that yet. So, i draw the rest of the line...and tell you what's going on, as much as i can.

My life is currently poorer for not reading Messuir Kierkegaard. I have long intended to correct that, but i must confess i will be a step behind your metaphors here.

I think there are better reasons than "other animals" but i digress.

If the stories were to relate to us in anything like a real way...could they have fairy tale endings, simple morals, clean plot lines, and rational proofs? Who would even read such a thing? The story must be engaging if it is to bring us out of ourselves, able to see a new way that is not dependant on the violence, competition, insecurity, and posessiveness that we humans seem to bask in as individuals and cultures.

Yes, I was just struck with the thought that in some way we are meant to live, and it is ironic that it is hard for us to realize it when dogs and squirrels and such do it without a worry.

I'll admit that I haven't read every page of the Bible... but isn't the Bible full of that stuff? Even the fairly socialist Jesus had to deal with betrayal and violence and the insecurity of those around him. Or read the story of Esther. The Bible is full of real life stuff, violence, explicit discussions of sex and posessiveness (particularly of women)... There is this discussion of a battle between good and evil... The Bible is successful in the same way that most mythologies are - it is a book full of conflict and tension (internal and external).

but isn't the Bible full of that stuff?... Yes. There is a great deal of it. There are two stories going on at the same time, IMO. A death story, and a life story. One is about empire, systamatized sin, greed, and brokeness. The other is about God, and will always stand over and against the death story.

That there's explicit sex doesn't bother me. Song of Songs is hot. And don't let *anyone* tell you it's an allegory. It's about sex, and some pretty hot sex at that. That there are rapes, assaults, abuses, and other gross violations of people's bodies and lives...

It bothers me deeply. I can barely make it through some passages... this is where i come back to the dueling stories. people try to tell death stories in the bible. they talk about violence like it solves problems, women like they're objects, etc...

But they inevitably get subverted by the larger text. you can try to slip in what ever you want, but the life story will surround the darkness, and not be overcome.

The tension you refer to is there. but i think the bible is unique in the way in which it has been the site of a continually self-critical and prophetic movement. no sooner is stuff down on paper, and there are prophets criticizing, revising, working with, and building from the existing tradition. Isaiah is one of my favorites, in the way in which he captures the very core of the teachings of the past. what had been told as death stories, Isaiah breaks open to show the life story that has been there all along. It's a powerful show of what happens when we listen to God, work with the text, and try to be receptive to the light. more and more of that life story is being brought out of the text...and thats where i draw my authority in scripture.

Well, tell me what you think about the large bloc of people in the United States who voted for Bush because they felt he was helping bring rapture to the world. Has the "life story" of the Bible been perverted by the uneducated and misguided? Or is this rush to the end by so many a representation of something else?

Tangential, but please tell me you are kidding.
I've read parts of the Bible and it never struck me as a story about life. It's all about the "life of the world to come" or a story showing everyone how not to be damned. Not a very life-affirming story.

AND no one has won that drink yet! Come on - I tried for what - 4, mebbe 6 hours. With visual aids no less!!!! And I got no where. Anyone wanna sell christianity (as a conceppt) to my roomate here - and I am buying a drink!

Scripture is exactly about life, how we may have it more abundantly. If, as Christianity claims, we were created to live with God, it is impossible to be happy/flourish/have eudaimonia without being in union with him. To be sure, Christianity teaches that we will not fully achieve our end until the life to come. But there are two crucial caveats. The life to come is a physical life. It's not ghosts with harps sitting on clouds -- scripture uses the image of a city to describe heaven, and a city represents life, commerce, interaction. But we also receive the Holy Spirit in this life, which represents sort of a down payment on the life to come. Think about the list of the gifts of the Spirit: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. All of these are blessings in this life. Moreover, as opposed to some other religions, Christianity teaches that, while this world may be flawed, it was created good, by a good God, and to some extent still bears the mark of its creator. The good things in life were created by God for us to enjoy; to quote Ben Franklin "Beer is a sign God loves us and wants us to be happy."

this i suppose is also addressed to livia.

Yes, i do think that Christianity has gotten hijacked. American Christianity owes an unfortunate debt to Calvin, who's theology began with grace but ended with injustice. now, the dispensationalist millenarians (left behind, etc...) that are being so loud now... They gravely misread the text, and that pun is intended. They are using one verse to support the theology of the rapture. One. It's in thessalonians. Go find it yourself...it's a short book, but i'll wager that you won't see it very easily. Neither should we. It is one verse in a book with a larger message. That message is not rapture. It is about how to wait for life in a world of death. Most of the folks who claim to be reading their bibles the best, are making some very questionable interpretive choices. Some of them are curious choices, some are down right dangerous.

Theology that disrespects the human, disrespects the creator. There are strains of Christianity, and Hebrew(later Jewish) theology for that matter, that stress the dignity of the human being. There are those that do not. I firmly believe it is not an act of disobediance to refuse the latter in place of the former.

I keep them both in my Bible, lest i forget what can become of our images of God. They can be hardened in to idols, distorted in to monsters, used as weapons to repress and to kill. It is frightening to know such things have been done in the name of Christ, but i would never wish to forget and risk repeating such sins.

No, there are many sources out there to look at. Google: "Bush rapture" "Bush Zionism" etc. There's an earnist belief out there that Bush can help bring the rapture with his dealings in Israel. I've read at least a dozen NYTimes articles about it. I'm not going to spend the time to search and quote for you, since most of my information is from actual paper... maybe someone involved in tracking this or with a curiousity streak will post some excerpts from articles for us.

Well, this is the problem. And it is based on several things: A) the process of how things originally got into The 5 Books of Moses/Old Testiment/New Testiment (and how things were omitted), B) the large number of contributors to the Bible and their political agendas, C) the way the text has changed over the years, D) the large numbers of translations (Hebrew to Greek to German to English), E) lack of historical documents accompanying the Bible to explain the accounts in the Bible, and F) contradictions or, to be generous, seeming contraditions.

Given all of these factors, it is very hard to wrap your mind around a large text such as the Bible. I will grant that there are some good lessons in there, just as there are in all other religions. However, it is very easy to find what you want in the Bible and twist the meaning for your own causes. If you want the Bible to be positive, it will be positive. If you want it to be negative, it will be negative. I think it is clear at this point, that logical arguments to believe in the Bible literally are fundamentally flawwed. So, what we're left with are logical arguments about faith, theological arguments, philosophical arguments, political arguments, sociological arguments, and historical arguments.

My approach is the same approach as to any other literature text or historical document. If you want to know the value of it, read it, and then research about it. Read different opinions on it, criticisms, historical studies, news articles related to it, etc. What I find discouraging is that Biblical arguments are often reduced to interpretation arguments based solely on one's personal read of the Bible. I suggest that you don't limit yourself to one religious text, and read about other religions and philosophies. If something about the metaphorical (or, as stated earlier, theological) meanings you find in the texts help you feel that you have a better understanding of the universe or how to live in the universe, then that's great.

You know from what I've stated so far that I'm not interested in the Bible as an authoritative text, and I'll leave it at that.

I think we've gone a little astray from the purpose of the thread. Can anyone start with the premise that I exist and you exist and the world around us exists and then argue up to the Christian God? I think that it's impossible and the furthest you can get is that something other than ourselves made us. So Christianity is, at best, wishful thinking about something we have no way of knowing.

Other than that line, i don't think anyone will be able to disagree with you.

Just my opinion, you understand. I don't mean to offend.

understood. i happen to disagree with you, but i was just pointing out where precisely that disagreement was.

i agree that the "proof" is not a logical process.

The Christian god isn't true or false, not because it's stupid, but because the entire concept is unintelligable.

The Christians believe their god is a supernatural being. Supernatural, referring to that which is above and/or not natural. As natural beings, we cannot relate to unnatural things using natural examples. To correctly understand (or not understand) this, you must know that the term supernatural does not describe 'what we don't understand', but rather 'that which is unintelligable'. Therefore, the notion of the Christian god is unintelligable.

This description is quite an interesting path to travel. As philosophers go down this path even further, it only looks worse and worse for Christians. The end definition being that Christians believe in that which is nonsense. (Philosophy studies of unintelligable have this path: Unintelligable = nonsensical = nonsense.)

This was the link in the chain that I couldn't follow. Where does this come from?

The term "supernatural" is a misnomer. In fact, everything referring to the supernatural is a misnomer- even this sentence. It all stems from the fact that something supernatural is either beyond or not capable of being comprehended. So far to the point that if something were such (supernatural), then nothing natural could be used to label it. Words, being real, natural concepts cannot be directly related to a supernatural concept. Hell, the term "supernatural concept" is superceeded by the fact that supernatural is unintelligable in the first place.

If something is not capable of natural comprehention, then it is unintelligable. You cannot label all things 'incapable of natural comprehention' into a category, since, as they are unintelligable, classificaition is not applicable.

If supernatural is something we cannot comprehend or have any thoughts about, where does the idea come from?

First of all, who says we can't understand the supernatural? I don't believe that for one minute, and I don't really think that there's any reason to hold that. Just because something is different from us doesn't mean we can't understand it. But of course, your main concern is with God, and traditionally we say he's beyond our comprehension. But we don't mean you can't understand anything about God, we only mean you can't understand everything about God. But that's not enough to run your argument.

Second, Livia argues: If we parse this, her argument seems to be that only things provable through logic should be believed in (otherwise they're wishful thinking). But, by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we can't prove anything. (Since we can't prove logic, and if we can't prove logic, we can't really prove anything else.) So we should believe anything. But this is clearly absurd -- it's obvious that I'm, for example, watching TV and typing a TFP post. So it must be the case that you can believe things you can't prove with logic.

"First of all, who says we can't understand the supernatural? I don't believe that for one minute, and I don't really think that there's any reason to hold that"

We cannot 'understand' supernatural simply because it would then be natural. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. This is a truth that has been proven. Even outside the context of god, this has been examined to be the case.

"Just because something is different from us doesn't mean we can't understand it."

This phrase assumes that the 'supernatural' can even be perceived as 'different' than us, when, in reality, applying such an adjective is not applicable.

"If supernatural is something we cannot comprehend or have any thoughts about, where does the idea come from?"

I don't know where the idea came from initially. I do know however that humans tend to believe a lot of things that are false or don't exist. For example, there's no such thing as 'good' or 'evil'. There's no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' (value terms, not truths). Society has built itself around these words, and, the words begin to take on other meanings. While there is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong' it can be said that such things are relative to the society. The term supernatural is no different than this. While the root meaning of the word is unintelligable, society has put certain constraints and values on the term in an effort to cope and make sense of it. It's quite a brain teaser to ponder 'supernatural'- few can do it, and therefore the original term was lost in society's framework built around it. Just like 'good' and 'evil', when analyzed absolutely, 'supernatural' can be seen in it's true light.

The fact that you and I exist can't be proved by logic (at least not that I'm aware of). Since our existance is one of my premises I don't see how you get that only things provable though logic should be believed. Is there an argument that doesn't assume God and still argues that he exists? All the ones I have read seemed to assume that God exists and then try and find a logical basis for him.

Robaggio, you don't think that there are things which almost every human agrees are good or bad? Is there any society that has said that murder is not a bad thing? Is there any society that says that stealing is acceptable? I doubt it. We are all human, made pretty much the same way. We tend to agree on right and wrong even if we define them slightly differently. That means that right and wrong do exist.

Also, she can kill you with her brain.

No, seriously, the germanic tribes had a concept of werguild - where revenge for a life taken was permissable, and even expected, but it wasnt based on any principle, except an eye for an eye, a tooth for a molar....whatnot. And today, even people who do kill, they are sentenced to life in prison (scott peterson being the recent exception)

Intrinsic Morality is relavant on some scale or another to each society. You are to some extent a product of that society and culture. Christianity shoots for something int he stratosphere - something trancendant and whatnot. Something above us. In benevolant authority. Something to appeal to when life no longer makes logical - semi logical - or even what was once vaguely recognisable as sense.

Alson, I eat meat. Tacos are neat. So are Feet. I want some Sleep.

So what are you arguing? That they didn't have an idea of murder? It was a life for a life. If you murded someone you got killed, we still do this.

Not all the time - the quality of justice has gone down a bit donchya think? - I suppose that I am arguing for ambiguity in logic. What was logical for them is not so much for us now, and it can be presumed that what is logical now will be just plain silly in 500 years.

So - why would you want someone to argue for christianity with logic? It is not at all a consistant concept. *yea the most convincing/ provable one* but still....not anything to build a lasting faith system on.

Just for you Livia. ... Hal is staring at me....I think he is killing me with HIS brain.
Either way - I will die by the end of the night. yea finals!

Livia - I just don't really understand, then, why you feel you require an argument to prove God exists, but you're willing to accept my existence on faith.

Robaggio - you still haven't explained WHY you think that the supernatural cannot be understood.

it's arguement by definition. it's not a bad definition...and kind of makes sense. but i suspect there won't be a whole lot of why to go around.

Robaggio: You seem to consider "can't be understood by humankind" and "can't be understood" to mean the same thing. Not that I can't understand that kind of thinking and its basis, but that's what prevented me from making sense of that link in our chain.

I believe that there are things that actually are, that we as humans cannot understand.

Not to be rude, but what's the difference? If humans can't understand the notion, then therefore it cannot be understood. As far as any other natural entity being able to understand, well, I don't think that's really a matter of consideration.

Reality as we know it is built up around our perception as natural creatures. Even the term 'natural' is only such that we can perceive with our senses. If something cannot be perceived with our senses, then it is nonsensical, or, nonsense. To take it another step further, we cannot use intelligent thought on anything that cannot be sensually perceived. Thus, something nonsensical is also unintelligable. - I'll try to dig up some of my sources or find an internet article for you to read. I know I'm missing out on some key aspects of the argument that would solidify it a bit more for you.

Livia: What you're describing is relative 'good' and 'evil'. Such is an opinion and thus lies in the eye of the beholder. Whether or not everyone believes a certain notion does not make it the truth. Therefore, although the majority of cultures belive killing to be 'evil' or 'wrong', it does not make it such. I can PM you about this if you like- since I don't know if the people in this thread want me to go on a tangent about good/evil & right/wrong.

Asaris: Read what martinguerre wrote. "Why" is not applicable.

I don't believe that human beings are capable of comprehending everything about the universe, even given an infinite amount of time in which to try.

For instance, how it is that existence exists. It always existed and had no beginning? Impossible, everything has a beginning. There was a first cause which did not have a cause itself, but always was? Impossible, everything has a cause.

but if we can't get it, for all intents and purposes it is incomprehensible. if we ever see something that is so complex or advanced that it passes our understanding entirely, we would have no way of verifying that it is a natural phenomenon.

mystical or rational, we would have nothing better than guesses to tell them apart.

this is what faith is though, believing what you dont necessarily hear or see.

and christianity is based 100% on faith

Exactly. Just don't forget to leave out the part where faith equates to nonsense. :)

I have communicated with you. I have a general idea of a being who calls himself asaris on TFP. There might be a lot of you pretending to be one person. You might be different from the way you present yourself. But from what I can see you have some sort of an existance. I can know some things about you because I can read your previous posts and I can see you are still acting in TFP. I also know that you are not something I have dreamed up. I have never had any communication with God. The only things I know about him were told to me by other people who had no direct experience of him either. I have never seen him do anything in the world around me that I could attribute to him.

Robaggio, by all means PM me or start a thread with this topic. It would be interesting to see what others had to say about it.

I've been looking at rob's argument the wrong way, and I understand what you and rob are saying now. Yes, we have no real way of telling what's nonsense and what's seemingly nonsensical beyond-our-comprehension truth. And I'm talking about an unfalsifiable alternative to robaggio's argument, of course.

No it's not, MartinGuerre. The closest thing to a definition in the post is the following But that's either not a definition, or a really bad one. What Robaggio might want to be doing is arguing from some definition of 'supernatural' (like 'beyond natural') to its incomprehensibility. This argument might run something like this:
What is supernatural is, by definition, beyond what is natural. But we are natural creatures; everything we know is built up on information we receive from our senses. Therefore, we cannot know the supernatural.
That's a halfway decent argument. But it's unsound. First of all, it ignores the possibility that we might have some sort of 'sixth sense', such that we can sense the supernatural. But since I don't really believe in a sixth sense, let's go to objection two. Second, this argument ignores a priori knowledge. I know that 2 + 2 = 4. And I could know that without having ever seen two objects being placed with two objects to make four objects. I know that a round square is impossible, but I've never seen a round square being impossible. Thirdly, it ignores the possibility that the supernatural might present itself to our senses, by, say, taking on a body or giving us a book to read. While this would not be sufficient for comprehension of the supernatural, it would be sufficient for saying some true things about the supernatural ("Look it says here God is like a mother hen. Therefore, God must be like a mother hen.") Fourthly, it ignores the possibility that I could use the natural to deduce things about the supernatural, in much the same way I can use one sense to deduce information normally gained from a different one (I hear someone in the next room, therefore, there is someone in the next room; the universe requires a cause, nothing natural could be its cause, therefore there must be supernatural). I suggest something like this in the 'faith' thread, when I mention Kant and Kierkegaard.

So, am I getting your argument right, Robaggio, or is there something I'm missing?

If we could sense it, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore. Furthermore, our senses don't define rational. UV or infrared light is invisible to us, but we understand us. If all of a sudden, a wormhole began depositing bricks in my backyard, and we couldn't understand the wormhole, i might think that something supernatural was happening.

<i>From my frame of reference</i> there wouldn't be a way to tell. A non-human observer who did understand the wormhole might know it was natural. I couldn't tell, becuase i had no foundational knowledge on which to base that distinction.

I don't understand how a priori knowledge alters the arguement. I'm talking about collective human wisdom, and i don't think we as humans have a priori knowledge, at least in terms of the physical realm.

if we saw an incarnation, we would by definition misunderstand it. an incarnation is a limited and kenotic form that reduces what God /the supernatural is so that we can see and otherwise interact with it, with out blowing our minds out our ears.

in your 4th arugment, you're still leaving something open.

what if the wormhole was depositing invisible and air-soluable bricks in to the room. we hear them, and can't find a natural cause. but the wormhole is just a cosmic anomoly, passing our understanding. we say it's ghosts, but that's only becuase we don't understand it.

i think the definition is still solid, and actually fits well with my understanding of the doctrine of revelation.

Supernatural is really an antiquated word, it doesn't have any real meaning anymore. Of course it previously referred to ghosts, angels, god, all that nonsense that can't be directly observed. We now know that stuff is fiction, and the current stuff we don't understand like wormholes and invisible bricks, are just phenomena to study.

I think Arthur C. Clarke wrote that any civilication sufficiently advanced beyond our own would seem like magic. It wouldn't be magic; it would just be the application of scientific principles that we don't yet understand.

Long live the krell.

I'm starting to suspect that we're using different definitions of natural here. By natural I just mean "Stuff like rocks and trees and animals"; it is opposed both to 'artificial' and to 'supernatural'. The problem is that if you just define supernatural as 'the stuff we can't understand'; well, then Robbagio's argument isn't very interesting.

Of course we have a priori knowledge of the physical realm, whatever you want to call it. I prefer the Kantian idiom here, because I think it's the simplest way to describe it. But the idea is just that there are structures to the mind, like time and space, which order our experience. Without these, experience would be totally random and we would be utterly unable to organize it. Moreover, the fact that 2+2=4 is certainly relevant to the physical world. How often do physicists use mathematics to describe this world? What this has to do with the argument is that it refutes the second premise, that we only get information from our senses.

You say that if we saw an incarnation, we would necessarily misunderstand it. In a way, I don't disagree with you. But this is just part of my general point that we can't completely understand God, and since failure to completely understand something is, in a sense, misunderstanding it; yeah, sure. But certainly we can know something about the supernatural through revelation. Say some supernatural being, whom we suppose to be trustworthy (let's call him Jed), gave us "The Book of Jed". Reading the "Book of Jed", we read that Jed is a nice guy. Given these premises, we can deduce that Jed is a nice guy. Certainly there are problems of evidence and the like here, but to think that in this case to believe Jed is a nice guy would be to misunderstand him would be to have a really wierd definition of 'misunderstand'.

Your response to my fourth argument misses something. I'd hardly deny that we could be mistaken about whether or not a given phenomenon is supernatural. But likewise, we could be right about a given phenomenon being supernatural. If I hear the sound of bricks dropping, it might be a random wormhole. But it might actually be a ghost. The problem is again an epistemological problem, and so can't give Robaggio his conclusion, which is a metaphysical one.