Board index ‹ Christianity

[Cecelia]

What about the Greek gods?

Since all religions can technically be accepted as equally valid, does that mean that to state The Greek Gods are the true gods’ is a fair statement? Debate!

[jimwalton]

> Since all religions can technically be accepted as equally valid

I would suggest that all religions cannot technically be accepted as equally valid. If we believe there is such a thing as truth, that truth can be known, and that there are mechanisms by which we can discern truth, then all systems of belief, whether scientific, religious, logical, mathematic, juridical, or philosophical, have to submit to the process of reasoning by which we determine truth. Therefore we cannot cavalierly state nor blindly assume that all religions can technically be accepted as equally valid. Religions, like anything else, must be evaluated according to definitions and evidences of truth.

> Since all religions can technically be accepted as equally valid, does that mean that to state The Greek Gods are the true gods’ is a fair statement?

Therefore this is NOT a fair statement without further analysis.

[Cecelia]

Apologies for bad phrasing on my part, what I meant was ‘assuming’.

[jimwalton]

OK, so let's talk. By what tests of proof do you assume Greek mythology is of the same substance as historic Christianity?

[Cecelia]

Well I’m an atheist, so for me there’s no proof at all of Christianity being real, so I put in the same category as the Greek myths.

[jimwalton]

Well, then, let's talk. We judge the truth of anything by examining its premises, seeing how it aligns with reality, how it correctly speaks about the human condition, how it is confirmed by experiences through thousands of years of history, how it is logical and reasonable, how it conforms to life as we know it, and what it does to people worldwide in all eras of history.

One of the things science has taught us is that if we can't trust the human mind to separate true perceptions from false ones, if we can't trust the human mind to discern truth, and if we can't trust the human mind to be able to be reasonable, then we have no such thing as science. The same is true of religion. We have learned that humans are capable of true perceptions, able to discern truth, to be reasonable, and to learn which experiences are valid and which are not. When Christianity is weighed in the balances, it passes the tests of truth.

Here are some reasons why I believe Christianity is true and real, and not at all in the same category as the Greek myths.

1. The God of the Bible conforms to reality and real life as we see it (as opposed to Greek myths that portray life concepts [such as love, war, wisdom, fertility, etc.] in the framework of petty and flawed "heroes" who are many times anti-heroes).

2. The Bible says God is a God of order, and the universe is orderly (in agreement with science but in contrast with the continual chaotic warfare, jealousies, and competitions of Gk mythology). The Bible shows God to be a God of power sufficient for creation, and what caused the universe to "bang" would have to be a powerful entity (contrast with Gk. mythography in which no deity is omnipotent). The biblical God has sufficiency of explanation whereas the Gk. gods do not.

3. The Bible says God is timeless, and what caused the universe to "bang" would have to be outside of time since as far as we know time didn't exist then (in agreement with observations of science and in contrast to Gk. mythology where the gods are created).

4. The Bible says God is personal. Since humans are personal, reasoning our way to the source of human personality convinces me of the Christian God. The Greek gods are also personal.

5. The evidence for the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.

6. The Bible says we are made in the image of God, which conforms to man as a rational being (intellect and will, noble and compassionate), and the abnormality of man in his current position as the result of sin (cruel, evil, dishonest, etc.). In Greek mythology men are slaves, tools, offspring, mistakes, and competitors.

7. The Trinity is the foundation of particularity and subject/object relationships, without which creation (the cosmos) is impossible and there is no foundation for knowledge or personality.

8. The Bible's historical content is truthful and in many places confirmable. The writers obviously had a grip on reality and truth. Its historical content is rich with corroborations from antiquity. There would have to be a reason one would question how they could be so right about culture, history, and geography and yet lie so despicably about their God-claims. The Bible's interpretations of life events make sense to people, its prophecies are astounding, and its teachings are life-changing. On investigation of the evidence, I find the Bible to be a forceful and stalwart source of spiritual truth.

9. There are logical "proofs" of God's existence: causality, purpose, morality, consciousness, personality, teleology, etc. These arguments make a whole lot of sense, though none of them are watertight or foolproof. I find that they are far more solid and substantial than arguments against God, but whenever such arguments are posted in a forum like this, they are ridiculed by the people who don't find them convincing—and yet not a single person has ever presented me with a stronger argument. Here is where reason alone will serve you, to consider how much the arguments make sense to you, to weigh their logic against the counter-arguments, and to infer the most reasonable conclusion. I, for one, have evaluated that arguments for the existence of God are strong, and that there are no good arguments that atheism is true or that scientific naturalism is true. Whenever I say such things, I get drilled to the wall by people who feel these arguments are worthless. No matter, because they never present stronger ones. This is one way I determine that God is real, and it's possible to figure out if God exists or not.

10. Evidences. Some people are convinced there are evidences of God in the world. They believe in evidences of spiritual forces; they intuit that this life is not all there is; they have experienced answers to prayer or the presence of God in a situation. These are all subjective, but for some people they are so strong and convincing they would say they have evidence for the existence of God. I fit into this category. I have seen evidences that to me are convincing.

11. I also find strong evidences in the natural world. When we have to figure out where informational data came from, science always tells us that informational data came from other informational data. There is to date no plausible scientific explanation as to how intelligence arose. There is a plausible theistic explanation. There is not plausible scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness, but there is a theistic one. There is not plausible scientific explanation for the existence of such fine tuning, life-enabling cosmological constants in the universe, but there is a theistic one. Science fails at the principle of sufficiency of explanation, while theism shines. The natural world is more supportive of a theistic explanation than a naturalistic one.

12. Experience. You can know God exists completely separately from arguments. Things make sense to us; we believe in the external world and the objectivity of reality; we believe other minds exist besides our own. We use logic, abstract reasoning, intuitions and perceptions to arrive at reasonable conclusions. We can also use our own experiences, subjective though they are, to understand our world and other abstractions such as time, motivation, preferences, advantages, and even spiritual realities. Scoffers, again, will say that nothing reliable can be based on one's experiences, but you and I both know that our experiences are not always false or untrustworthy.

13. Lifechange. The kind of change that the Christian God brings to lives contrasts strongly with anything in any other religion, in complete contrast to Greek mythology which knows no such thing.

Am I to presume you've examined the evidence and have concluded that the case against Christianity is stronger than the case for it? I would be pleased to read your case and discuss it with you.

[Cecelia]

I don’t really have an answer about all the creation of us stuff, but this is my theory.

The universe contracts and expands. We measure time from when ours started, when the universe contracted into a pinprick and then exploded out and began expanding again, (which I’m fairly sure has some merit, I read somewhere that the universe is indeed expanding) and after so many billion years of all the stars and dust began banging off each other, (a big generalisation here but you get the idea) and eventually formed big rocks, with stars close enough to them, usually. Because of the conditions, the heat from the stars began (again a big generalisation) hearing them up, then atoms and stuff and badda bing badda boom, there’s rain, which means water. Then in the water bacteria happened, then they evolved over a couple billion years until they went on land, and another while passes, mammals, ape like species, humans, then we evolved, (which fun fact is why babies are so helpless, they’re actually meant to stay in the womb for around 10~ months, but because we developed an upright walking style our hips narrowed and we couldn’t push them out anymore, so they just come out earlier when they’re smaller)

I don’t really think we have a point, which is kinda nihilistic but that’s how I feel. I think you have to make life have a point, you know? For some people that’s creating, or curing or inventing and for lots it’s even religion, each to their own. You have to find your point, or points, I think. Without it there isn’t one.

What some people find proof, I might find (what I think is a more logical explanation) or vice versa. What I call coincidence could be another’s pattern, and so on so forth.

I find that logic and morality and stuff comes from a desire to have the best outcome for us, which usually includes others, although there are definitely a few who do not possess the group survival is the best survival ‘gene’ or whatever you call it. I also find that we are (mostly) naturally a sociable species, which increases morality. Don’t kill someone you want to talk to.

I actually grew up religious, and after a while I just couldn’t force myself anymore. It hurt me because I was hearing stuff that didn’t align with my moral compass (for example, ‘gay is bad’ etc, when I was struggling knowing I was gay (ended up bi but you get the idea) as well as the scandal in my country about church personnel raping children) It also hurt me that I was constantly told that I was broken, useless and pointless because I couldn’t compare to Jesus and God and the Saints, and I wanted to be like them, so so much, but I just couldn’t, and was told so continuously. When I stopped going to church, it just gave me that inner peace that you described, like everything was how it should be, like I’d found my point. Maybe not the whole point, but a bit of it, the start.

And I mean, we can’t really prove this stuff anyway, since you can’t prove a negative. We’re all different, and part of leaving the church helped me realise that. What made me happy might not make someone else happy. My grandmother was hurt by my leaving, but my cousin was happy that we had something in common. You just have to do what’s right by you.

[jimwalton]

> The universe contracts and expands.

I know this is a theory, but it seems eminently speculative and both unprovable and unfalsifiable (like God).

The Big Bang is well-accepted, and I accept it as well. There are severe problems, though, with (1) the orderliness of the universe that started with an explosive expansion, and (2) abiogenesis, as well as many other pieces of this puzzle. Science can only explain so far, and then...they have nothing to say. I think that those two factors alone motivate us to look beyond science for other causative mechanisms.

Ultimately the Big Bang doesn't prove there is no God (nor does it prove there is one except that we have to wonder what the causative mechanism of the "Bang" was if the laws of nature nor nature itself existed. The cause was outside of nature.).

> then we evolved

I believe in evolution as well.

> I might find (what I think is a more logical explanation) or vice versa

I'd be curious in your logical explanations that are plausible than theism. As I've mentioned, science lacks sufficiency of explanation, whereas theism has such sufficiency. Theism is the stronger case.

Greek mythology isn't even in the game.

> then we evolved

I also believe in evolution.

> What some people find proof, I might find (what I think is a more logical explanation) or vice versa. What I call coincidence could be another’s pattern, and so on so forth.

Well, there has to be more to it than this if there's such a thing as truth, especially scientific truth, along with any other arena of truth (philosophy, history, law, religion, etc.). If truth is not knowable, which sounds like what you're sort of saying, then we have no basis for any knowledge or belief.

> logic

I'm curious how a system based on matter + time + chance yields a brain that can reason its way to truth. In a chance system, the outcome has nothing to do with truth, but only "what is" and survival. How does the ability to reason come out of systems that are somewhat haphazard and mutational? To me it's a defeater.

In any case, these at least show that Christianity is in a completely different category than the Greek myths. It's simply illegitimate to lump them together.

> And I mean, we can’t really prove this stuff anyway,

No, but we can reason our way to the most reasonable conclusion (abductive reasoning)—weighing the evidence to arrive at the most plausible explanation. That's how I arrive at Christianity as true. It's not a matter of arriving at what's right by you, but instead arriving at what is most plausibly the truth, regardless of my opinion of it.

[Cecelia]

I dunno, I guess if you really stretch it all the stuff in the bible is possible, but why would a loving god hate his creations so much? Why would his own holy people, eg priests rape and sexually abuse young children, why would he stand by as people like my aunt wasted away from cancer for the land of ‘heaven’ when in actuality heaven was where she was, with her four young children who had no one else but her since she had emigrated to another country? Who have suffered their entire lives because they had no support network? There are so many other examples, both personal and ones I’ve seen and heard elsewhere that actually make me hope there isn’t a god, because they must be pure evil.

A quote from Epicurus sums it up best in my opinion.

“If he is willing but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?
And if he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?”

[jimwalton]

> I guess if you really stretch it all the stuff in the bible is possible

It logically doesn't require a stretch at all. Christiantity, both logically and scientifically speaking, has sufficiency of explanation whereas the other religions, and even science, have only partial explanation. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, Christianity wins the day. If we go with Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the correct one), Christianity comes out on top. The other positions are the ones that are more stretchy.

> why would a loving god hate his creations so much?

Whoa, where did this come from all of a sudden? Wow, that was a shift in gears. God doesn't hate his creations at all. He loves them and wants the very best for them, which is to free them from their sins and to enable an unhindered relationship with Him.

> Why would his own holy people, eg priests rape and sexually abuse young children

Because these priests are perverted, awful, sinful people who have abused their position to ruin people's lives. These "priests" are not part of God's family. 1 John 1.6: "If we claim to have a oneness of fellowship with God and yet are walking in the darkness, we are liars and are not living out the truth."

Jesus said you will know the nature of a person's relationship with God by how they act. These priests, then—it is obvious—don't know God. They're predators.

> why would he stand by as people like my aunt wasted away from cancer

No one lives forever. Our bodies submit to disease and death. If everyone was guaranteed a full life no matter what, there would be no such thing as cause-and-effect, no such thing as science, and ultimately our reasoning power would be worthless. Someone could jump off a building or walk in a fire and not get hurt. No one would ever get sick or have an accident.

> that actually make me hope there isn’t a god, because they must be pure evil.

If God were to intervene in every instance of suffering, pain, and evil, we would cease to be human. There would be no science, and no ability to reason. There'd be no regularity and no predictability. He would have to control all our actions and even our thoughts. Without suffering we would lose humanity in the trade.

The subject of the problem of evil is a much longer one. We can have it as you wish, but it's so long it would need its own thread.

> quote of Epicurus

It's an illogical quote and position. The Epicurean "dilemma" has been debunked over and over through the centuries. It's in the grave.

God has reasons for not stopping every problem. I have listed a few, and can list many more. Not only would we lose our humanity, science, and reason; not only would we have to be unthinking, unfeeling robots under God's despotic control; we would have no capacity for creativity because it would necessarily be a static world, not a dynamic one, our brains included. In addition, suffering actually has a place in the world. By it we learn perseverance, nobility, courage, and compassion. It is suffering that motivates us to learn, to help, and to invent. It is suffering that brings out the best in people when things are the worst. It is suffering that motivates us to ponder God, humanity, and the meaning of life. There is SO much more to say, but I'll repeat this: Epicurus and his ideas are false. We should talk more.