Why is the religion that you practice superior to all other religions?

[Sola_Fide]

I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.

No. They both require faith. Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith. I've shown this many times on this forum with different people.

 

[tttppp]

I will try to answer this from another scriptural perspective using the concept of sanatana, or eternity.

Sanatana means "that which has no beggining or end". God is sanatana, and so are we.

But how can we also be sanatana? Because the Lord exists beyond time, and we are a part of His eternal nature, being His creations. Being from His nature, we have the qualities that God does, but in minute quantity.

If God is eternal, then so are we. If infinity exists, then everything is infinite. You can't have an infinite God and finite universe.

 

[tttppp]

For me, it boils down to these.

(1) For me, it is self-evident that the things in nature have a Creator.

I appreciate that atheists and skeptics do not see it this way, even though they will accept that everything else in life has a creator. In other words, they use, say, an Apple computer knowing it was created, yet they will eat an apple and assume it simply came about as a result of random chance over a huge period of time.

Actually, the apple WAS produced... by the tree. The tree was produced... by God. But who produced God? Skeptics and atheists have the same problem with the Universe. They believe the Universe had an origin, a "First Cause" if you will... yet what caused that?

So really, skeptics and believers have the same problem in relation to the First Cause. The difference is, believers (like myself) point to design as evidence of a Designer.

And ironically, the more advanced we get scientifically, the more advanced we see the design. We see that our bodies, on a large scale, seem fairly simple... yet go down to the molecular, cellular level... and we see incredible complexity and machine-like, precision design that would have made Darwin raise an eyebrow or two

(2) The Hebrew God (YHWH) claims to be that Creator.

Many gods do not even claim that. The Hebrew God claims it, which at least means his claims are worthy of a bit more attention. I know that ardent atheists spend a bit more time over YHWH than, say, Zeus

(3) The Hebrew God has left an indelible imprint of His activities with humankind

It's interesting that we here are not really talking about Zeus, or Hermes... and yet all through history, this YHWH keeps cropping up and being talked about, even though his religion often seems on the brink of destruction at times. If Zeus were really God, I would have thought his worshippers would be making a defense of him by now.

(4) The Hebrew God has told humankind in advance what He intended to do.

For example, the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53, who dies and comes back to life to bear the sins of many... 800 years in advance of Christ. While this could be seen as a prophecy, it is also a statement of INTENT.

(5) The Hebrew God was the God of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ lived and died exactly like the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53. He also claimed to be the Son of God, and was put to death for it.

Of course, skeptics have attempted to attack and/or demolish the "Jesus" story from every possible angle...

(a) Jesus never existed, but his story is really a rehash of pagan myths and legends. ["Zeitgeist"]
(b) Jesus was mistaken. [Dawkins]
(c) Jesus was deluded.
(d) Jesus was a magician. [the Jewish Talmud]
(e) Jesus existed but his story was later edited to include miracles, etc [Skeptics]

None of these, upon closer scrutiny, hold up.

Most of the pagan myths do not bear the same resemblance to the life of Jesus, and the ones who claim this lack SOURCE MATERIAL to demonstrate this, but usually quote other writers who themselves don't have the source material to back up their claims... or where such material exists, it usually comes much later than Jesus anyway (as in the case of the supposed Mithra connections). And in the few connections, i.e. December 25th, the birthday of the Sun... well, Jesus wasn't even born in the middle of winter anyway! So the connection has nothing to do with the Jesus story in the New Testament.

Was Jesus mistaken? Possibly, but his statements do not sound like somebody who is simply mistaken. Besides, he was NOT mistaken in his pronouncements about his destiny, and the destiny of his nation. He said he was going to be put to death... and that his nation would fall by the sword and led captive into all the nations. Clearly he was not mistaken there, so something more was probably going on.

If Jesus was deluded, then let's face it, he was an incredibly wise deluded man This also means his apostles and disciples were deluded, yet the apostles also claimed to perform miracles and also lost their lives in the fervent belief they had witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Paul was also independently deluded, because he had a vision of Christ outside of the circle of the apostles... a vision that resulted in him converting huge numbers of non-Jews to Christ!

The Jewish Talmud claims Jesus [using a cryptic name for him] was a magician, justifying why they put him to death. But this demonstrates two things: that (a) they knew he existed, and (b) that the man performed things that appeared to them as magic tricks.

But if Jesus were a magician, then that would make him a false prophet... a deceiver. Yet their own scriptures foretold a "suffering servant" who would die on behalf of the sins of the people. Daniel [chapter 9] foretold a Messiah, or "anointed one", who would be cut off... prior to their city and temple being destroyed.

Given that their city and temple WERE destroyed (as foretold by their own prophet Daniel) [in 70AD]... the Jewish Messiah must, of necessity, have arrived prior to 70AD. And while there were several who claimed to be prophets and messiahs in that time, only Jesus stands out as foretelling the things that came upon the Jews, and whose words are immortalized even today.

Thus, this suggests Jesus was a TRUE prophet... and therefore not merely a "magician". Indeed, their ancient prophets also performed similar miracles to Jesus... so that same generation would have stoned their own prophets, had they lived among them!

Thus, their claim that Jesus was a magician does not hold water, because he demonstrated all the qualities of being a PROPHET... including, ironically, being put to death by his own people, as some Old Testament prophets were.

Was Jesus' life story edited to include miracles, at a later date? This means that Jesus did no miracles... but then, why would the original disciples believe him to be the Messiah and a prophet? The miracles were one of the SIGNS and proofs of his identity. Without them, the apostles and disciples would have had no compelling reason to believe Jesus' claims... and certainly not to die for him.

Indeed, why would there be ANY compelling reason for a Jew in the mid 30's of the 1st century to become a Christian, if there were no miracles? Jesus had been put to death... end of!

Yet the apostles and early disciples staked their lives and reputations on the belief that they had seen Jesus perform miracles, and had also witnessed his resurrection. This was also true of many of his earliest disciples. The Christian congregation itself was also founded on a claimed miracle... that of 120 disciples speaking in tongues to the Jews from all nations in Jerusalem. [Acts 2] If none of these things were true, wouldn't it be much more likely that the Nazarene "sect" would have simply fizzled out after a time?

And even if not, we have to ask where their momentum came from... especially when they did not have a "New Testament" to refer to!

Word of mouth therefore clearly played a part... and the authority of the apostles. But again...the authority of the apostles was an unusual anomaly in history, because most authority is wielded for a somewhat selfish purpose, while the apostles expended themselves for, and even died for, their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

If the apostles "made up" some or all of the miracle stories... then they are liars. But then, when you read their warnings about God, they do not sound like liars but very sincere people.

So what is left? That they were mistaken? They could have been... but then, they were also able to perform miracles themselves... so if they were making that up, then they were liars. And yet they do not sound like liars. What was their motivation? Money, power, fame? Possibly... but if so, it would be the most contradictory set of beliefs ever. Their congitive dissonance would have been through the roof

Or maybe... just maybe... they were telling the truth. Maybe Jesus was who he claimed to be... the Son of God. And maybe... just maybe... the apostles were witnesses of him, and his resurrection.

This is the best hypothesis in my opinion, and the one that I accept.

(Of course, what I've said here isn't a COMPLETE account of why I believe what I believe, or a complete attempt to refute all possible counter-arguments... but it's a good outline and a decent start )

I would be considered an atheist, and I don't believe the universe had an origin. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then how could God create it.

 

[Yieu]

If God is eternal, then so are we. If infinity exists, then everything is infinite. You can't have an infinite God and finite universe.

I was just saying that we are eternal because God created us that way, and so is God.

But this universe, and all other universes, are temporary. They go through cycles of creation and destruction. This is taught in the Vedas, and is also similar to the "big crunch" theory, and involves the multi-verse theory.

 

[Yieu]

I would be considered an atheist, and I don't believe the universe had an origin. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then how could God create it.

You don't believe in the big bang theory? In other words, you believe the universe has always existed and there is no galactic drift?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I was just saying that we are eternal because God created us that way, and so is God.

But this universe, and all other universes, are temporary. They go through cycles of creation and destruction. This is taught in the Vedas, and is also similar to the "big crunch" theory, and involves the multi-verse theory.

That cyclical view of history is certainly not Biblical. The Bible teaches a linear view of history...that the universe came into being at a point in time.

 

[tttppp]

I was just saying that we are eternal because God created us that way, and so is God.

But this universe, and all other universes, are temporary. They go through cycles of creation and destruction. This is taught in the Vedas, and is also similar to the "big crunch" theory, and involves the multi-verse theory.

All of those theories you mentioned are bs. The universe is infinite. Thats the only way it can exist. The cycles of creation and destruction are total bs. In 10 years they'll come up with another bs theory that disproves it. You can't figure out the universe by what you see. What you can see is only a small fraction of the whole. The only way you can figure out the whole is to use your brain. Technically, if infinity exists, what you see is zero. So you'll never be able to prove what the universe is based on what you see.

 

[Yieu]

That cyclical view of history is certainly not Biblical. The Bible teaches a linear view of history...that the universe came into being at a point in time.

This universe did come into being at one point in time. The only difference in the teaching is that God had created universes prior to this one --as He exists eternally, which means having no beginning as well as having no end.

 

[tttppp]

You don't believe in the big bang theory? In other words, you believe the universe has always existed and there is no galactic drift?

The big bang theory is possible, but it would not include everything. It would just be limited to our universe, not everything. So the big bang theory, is not a theory of everything. If it is a theory of everything, then it would be inaccurate.

But even in the big bang theory, the universe starts from basically an infinite amount of energy. It didn't start from absolutely nothing. So if you do believe in the big bang theory, you can't really believe in most religions, in which a lot of them have adopted the big bang theory as proof the universe was created by God.

 

[Muwahid]

The big bang theory is possible, but it would not include everything. It would just be limited to our universe, not everything. So the big bang theory, is not a theory of everything. If it is a theory of everything, then it would be inaccurate.

But even in the big bang theory, the universe starts from basically an infinite amount of energy. It didn't start from absolutely nothing. So if you do believe in the big bang theory, you can't really believe in most religions, in which a lot of them have adopted the big bang theory as proof the universe was created by God.

Do you believe the universe is expanding? I think that's the basic evidence for the big bang, if the universe is expanding then at one point it would have had to have been really small.

 

[otherone]

No. They both require faith. Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith.

QFT.
Logic is a fine tool to discern what is real, but fails in it's attempts to prove that which is outside our consciousness.
All knowledge is subjective.

 

[sevin]

No. They both require faith. Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith. I've shown this many times on this forum with different people.

But if your beliefs are based on blind faith as well, then what makes your beliefs superior to mine?

 

[Sola_Fide]

But if your beliefs are based on blind faith as well, then what makes your beliefs superior to mine?

Because empiricism is irrational. Induction is a logical fallacy. Arguments from experience commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. If your theory of knowledge causes you to break the laws of logic, there is something wrong to begin with.

Since all knowledge must come through propositions (which are either true or false), and since the senses in interacting with creation yield no propositions, knowledge cannot be conveyed by sensation.

 

[otherone]

If your theory of knowledge causes you to break the laws of logic, there is something wrong to begin with.

You've already claimed that the system of logic itself is based on faith.

 

[Sola_Fide]

QFT.
Logic is a fine tool to discern what is real, but fails in it's attempts to prove that which is outside our consciousness.
All knowledge is subjective.

Whoa! Now I definitely wouldn't say that! I would say it is the opposite. All knowledge is objective in the mind of God. Man can only have knowledge when he knows something that God knows.

Scripturalism denies the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., that the mind of man has only a representation of the truth, and not the truth itself. Rather, a Christian epistemology holds to the coherence theory of truth, which maintains that what man has is the real truth: the same truth that exists in man’s mind exists first in the mind of God. As stated by Gordon Clark: “Realism is the view that the mind of man actually possesses the truth. Representationalism holds that the mind has only an image, a picture, a representation, an analogy of the truth, but does not have the truth itself.”(18)

A Christian epistemology maintains that a proposition is true because God thinks it to be true. Therefore, when man knows truth, what he knows coheres with that which God knows. Our knowledge must coincide with God’s knowledge if we are going to know the truth. In the coherence theory, the mind and the object known are both part of one system, a system in which all parts are in perfect accord, because they are found in the mind of God. Since God is omniscient, knowing all truth, if man is going to know the truth, he must know what God knows.

Besides, sensation cannot yield knowledge. All knowledge comes through propositions, and since the senses interacting with the world produce no propositions, they can't be true or false, so you can't know anything through sensation.

 

[otherone]

Whoa! Now I definitely wouldn't say that! I would say it is the opposite.

My apologies, I got tangled between what Sevin wrote and what Beorn wrote:
Sevin is one of you people, Beorn is possibly a Sophist like myself.

Can you prove logic doesn't rely on faith?
That is, can you prove that logic is reliable without disobeying its own laws of circular reasoning and relying on logic to prove it?

Deists and Positive Atheists essentially say the same thing...that absolute knowledge exists. That isn't my thing...at least, I can't prove it, as absolute knowledge lies outside of logic.

 

[UK4Paul]

I would be considered an atheist, and I don't believe the universe had an origin. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then how could God create it.

OK, here is one possibility. Since Einstein's equation (e=mc^2) shows that energy and matter are related, and energy can be converted into matter and vice versa...

Is it possible that there was a time when everything was pure energy? Is it possible that this was "God", and this entity gradually converted some of that energy into matter?

At least with your worldview on the universe not having an origin, we don't have to worry about the origin of the energy... because if the universe didn't have an origin, then that could be true of the energy within it as well.

Actually, I have a notion (although I'm not dogmatic about it), that what we call "God" was actually infinite, inexhaustable ENERGY... which by virtue of its infinite nature, would have the capacity somehow for Infinite Intelligence. This Intelligence then created what we see in our universe today.

I know it's a crude theory, but at least it's a start in attempting to understand God. Most Christians simply say he is the First Cause, and leave it at that. They don't explain how such First Cause had such an intelligence in the first place.

I personally think God CAN be explained... but we are still at the infancy stage of understanding energy.

I suspect that infinite ENERGY would, by its very nature, be Intelligent. It would be like an instant neural net.

As for the infinite regress problem that atheists "worry" about... well, mathematics is full of infinite regresses.

Take the number 1, and divide it by 3... you get 0.33333333333333333... and on to an infinity of smallness.

The universe is based on mathematics, in as far as the physical sciences we know are based on laws that we can define mathematically.

In other words, e=mc^2 is the mathematical expression connecting energy and mass by the SQUARE of the speed of light.

Nobody actually asks why it is the SQUARE of the speed of light

Physics isn't really interested... but these things hint at the nature of reality.

 

[tttppp]

Do you believe the universe is expanding? I think that's the basic evidence for the big bang, if the universe is expanding then at one point it would have had to have been really small.

I don't believe the universe is expanding. This research is based off of one observation from our perspective. Our vantage point only takes into consideration about 0% of the universe. I don't think its wise to jump to conclusions of one observation that can view 0% of the universe.

 

[tttppp]

OK, here is one possibility. Since Einstein's equation (e=mc^2) shows that energy and matter are related, and energy can be converted into matter and vice versa...

Is it possible that there was a time when everything was pure energy? Is it possible that this was "God", and this entity gradually converted some of that energy into matter?

At least with your worldview on the universe not having an origin, we don't have to worry about the origin of the energy... because if the universe didn't have an origin, then that could be true of the energy within it as well.

Actually, I have a notion (although I'm not dogmatic about it), that what we call "God" was actually infinite, inexhaustable ENERGY... which by virtue of its infinite nature, would have the capacity somehow for Infinite Intelligence. This Intelligence then created what we see in our universe today.

I know it's a crude theory, but at least it's a start in attempting to understand God. Most Christians simply say he is the First Cause, and leave it at that. They don't explain how such First Cause had such an intelligence in the first place.

I personally think God CAN be explained... but we are still at the infancy stage of understanding energy.

I suspect that infinite ENERGY would, by its very nature, be Intelligent. It would be like an instant neural net.

As for the infinite regress problem that atheists "worry" about... well, mathematics is full of infinite regresses.

Take the number 1, and divide it by 3... you get 0.33333333333333333... and on to an infinity of smallness.

The universe is based on mathematics, in as far as the physical sciences we know are based on laws that we can define mathematically.

In other words, e=mc^2 is the mathematical expression connecting energy and mass by the SQUARE of the speed of light.

Nobody actually asks why it is the SQUARE of the speed of light

Physics isn't really interested... but these things hint at the nature of reality.

Everything is pure energy now. Everything is made up of the same stuff and can be converted into anything you want. It all follows the same law, zero=infinity.

Lets put the God issue to rest. Lets take Christianity for example. Everyone follows the bible. Well I can tell you for a fact that the bible is not God's word. No true God would write a complex book that nobody can get a complete understanding of. A real God would get everything down on one page, and make it so simple that everyone would understand it. I'm not saying I'm God, but I can write a rule book a lot simpler than the bible. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the bible doesn't come from God. The bible, like all religious books, can be interpreted almost any way you want. This is not something God would want.

 

[Supernaut]

Paganism - Because it is the religion of my Indo-European ancestors, and I find truth in its simplicity especially compared to the weird, esoteric, Middle-Eastern Cult of Human Sacrifice, nonsense that was forcefully imposed by the Roman tyrant Constantine to brainwash and enslave a continent of once strong and proud people.