Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[NUance]

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism. If it weren't, then it'd be just as crazy to be nonreligious as it would be to deny Newton's laws of motion. Then everyone would have to be either religious, or devoid of reason.

As it happens, reasonable people fall into either camp. We'd do well just to have that understanding, that neither is crazy.

This is true to the extent of people who haven't had a "religious" experience. But what about someone who has? Like the Apostle Paul. After his experience on the road to Damascus he completed changed sides--becoming a devoted Christian rather than a guy who persecuted Christians (Acts 9). Or Stephen. When Stephen was being tried by the Sanhedrin he could have saved his life by recanting. But he didn't. And they stoned him. (Acts 7).

The problem is, religious experiences like that of Paul aren't replicable or capable of verification like scientific experiments. Even so, it seems like some deference should be given to the people who put their life on the line claiming that their non-replicable religious experience was real. After all, if their experiences weren't real, what did they have to gain by sticking to their story until they were put to death for it?

 

[knapplc]

This is true to the extent of people who haven't had a "religious" experience. But what about someone who has? Like the Apostle Paul. After his experience on the road to Damascus he completed changed sides--becoming a devoted Christian rather than a guy who persecuted Christians (Acts 9). Or Stephen. When Stephen was being tried by the Sanhedrin he could have saved his life by recanting. But he didn't. And they stoned him. (Acts 7).

The problem is, religious experiences like that of Paul aren't replicable or capable of verification like scientific experiments. Even so, it seems like some deference should be given to the people who put their life on the line claiming that their non-replicable religious experience was real. After all, if their experiences weren't real, what did they have to gain by sticking to their story until they were put to death for it?

Joseph Smith meets this criteria. He had a religious conversion inspired by divine intervention and stuck to his story until he was put to death for it.

 

[Landlord]

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism. If it weren't, then it'd be just as crazy to be nonreligious as it would be to deny Newton's laws of motion. Then everyone would have to be either religious, or devoid of reason.

As it happens, reasonable people fall into either camp. We'd do well just to have that understanding, that neither is crazy.

This is true to the extent of people who haven't had a "religious" experience. But what about someone who has? Like the Apostle Paul. After his experience on the road to Damascus he completed changed sides--becoming a devoted Christian rather than a guy who persecuted Christians (Acts 9). Or Stephen. When Stephen was being tried by the Sanhedrin he could have saved his life by recanting. But he didn't. And they stoned him. (Acts 7).

The problem is, religious experiences like that of Paul aren't replicable or capable of verification like scientific experiments. Even so, it seems like some deference should be given to the people who put their life on the line claiming that their non-replicable religious experience was real. After all, if their experiences weren't real, what did they have to gain by sticking to their story until they were put to death for it?

Either you just took this in a completely unrelated direction, or you don't understand what empiricism is. From wiki, "It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

So the accounts of Paul or Stephen are not discounted, but met with, imo, rightful and healthy skepticism and also deemed entirely supernatural.

As far as your last question, it's a bit of a misnomer. There are more options than either it's real or they were con artists, most notably that they thought it was real. I obviously believe in the Christ and supernatural events throughout history, but I don't believe in all supernatural events. There are plenty of people that zealously believe God has spoken to them or that they are some kind of prophet or various other experiences that I think are entirely full of sh#t, but they really believe it. I think, if we're talking within the Christian camp, then deference should only be given to people claiming these experiences that you interpret to be consistent with God's revealed character and methods. If you're talking about non-Christians, I don't think there is any reason to give any deference to any supernatural claim over any other, as I think that the Christ is the only compelling argument for His own case.

 

[zoogs]

Two other seminal figures in the spread of Christianity come to mind. First, the Roman Emperor Constantine, who described having a vision instructing him to fight in Christ's name just before a pivotal battle in the civil war of succession that would result in his crowning. Centuries later, the defining Frankish King Clovis: having been long urged to convert by his wife, he pledged himself to the Christian God should he be given an unlikely battle victory. Such stories are not uncommon through history, across religions and cultures.

There are people who have no less deep convictions that they have seen ghosts, or were abducted by aliens, and so on. As LOMS points out, we're well outside the issue of empiricism now. We know that some people will swear by a range of supernatural, unexplainable experiences, but there is no universal deference to their accounts, only personal ones.

I (think?) it's accepted that we often have a proclivity towards such interpretations of our experiences, though of course that's not a commentary on any particular account. We can study the phenomenon of people having these experiences, but untestable claims are another matter.

 

[JJ Husker]

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I have not seen Schrödinger's cat, but I believe

I believe it is dead.

 

[NUance]

This is true to the extent of people who haven't had a "religious" experience. But what about someone who has? Like the Apostle Paul. After his experience on the road to Damascus he completed changed sides--becoming a devoted Christian rather than a guy who persecuted Christians (Acts 9). Or Stephen. When Stephen was being tried by the Sanhedrin he could have saved his life by recanting. But he didn't. And they stoned him. (Acts 7).

The problem is, religious experiences like that of Paul aren't replicable or capable of verification like scientific experiments. Even so, it seems like some deference should be given to the people who put their life on the line claiming that their non-replicable religious experience was real. After all, if their experiences weren't real, what did they have to gain by sticking to their story until they were put to death for it?

Joseph Smith meets this criteria. He had a religious conversion inspired by divine intervention and stuck to his story until he was put to death for it.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same. Although I'm not sure that the lynch mob who shot Joseph Smith gave him the opportunity to recant. (Even if they had, I doubt that Joseph Smith would have recanted.)

To be honest, I don't know what to make of Mormonism. Every Mormon person I've met has been a clean cut, honest, good citizen. I have relatives who are Mormon. I respect their way of life, yet I have a hard time believing some of the things they believe in (to the extent I understand them.) I guess me looking at the beliefs of Mormons is a lot like a nonbeliever looking at the beliefs of Christians.

 

[JJ Husker]

It doesn't make you irrational. Nothing says there can be no religion in a post-enlightenment culture and it's hard to imagine humanity ever running out of its supply of wonder.

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism. If it weren't, then it'd be just as crazy to be nonreligious as it would be to deny Newton's laws of motion. Then everyone would have to be either religious, or devoid of reason.

As it happens, reasonable people fall into either camp. We'd do well just to have that understanding, that neither is crazy.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

One last parting thought. If you're looking for hard scientific evidence of God or a creator, you are going to likely be disappointed. I am amazed at the people who just can't grasp the nature of an unseen supernatural entity. You expect, nay demand, hard proof when the very nature of the being precludes hard evidence. It's like some people don't even try to understand it. I'm out.

^^ This.

Just what can we expect from our demands for interaction? I mean, think about the sheer difference in magnitude between a being capable of creating the universe and us. I'm not even sure you can apply human concepts like size and intelligence to God. But let's say you can. If God was as large as our solar system he would still be quite small in comparison to the universe. So maybe, if you could even think in terms of God having a size, you'd have to think of him being much larger than a solar system (btw, I don't really think God is a "being" in the sense that he has a particular size or shape that we can comprehend.) But even a solar-system-sized God trying to interact with humanity might be like thinking about a scientist (God) trying to interact with a few atoms (humanity) sitting on the surface of an amoeba. And there might be a similar difference between God's omniscience and our own limited intelligence as there is between the intelligence of the amoeba atoms and the scientist. So just what do we expect when we demand that this solar-system-sized God of infinite intelligence come down here and show himself? That's sort of like a belligerent hydrogen atom on the surface of that amoeba demanding that the scientist peering through the microscope come down there and show himself.

Despite the vast difference in magnitude between God and us, I actually do think God—being omniscience and all powerful—can interact with us. And I think he has interacted with us throughout history whenever it suited his purpose. Maybe he interacts with us quite frequently. I just don't think we are very good at comprehending God.

That, however, creates an inherent paradox. By all accounts, the Christian god requires that people obtain salvation through faith. Why? If this god can discern our worship, and if it is all-powerful, it should be the simplest of matters for it to also establish its existence beyond any doubt.

Faith is a sloppy way to run the program. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why a being of such scope finds the need for such insignificant creatures as men to worship it.

Yes, I've heard the argument that faith is a test of sorts, but that argument fails on two fronts (at least). First, it does not consider those that are never exposed to the belief system and therefore cannot possibly meet the requirements of faith the religion establishes. Second, for an all-powerful being, that knowledge already exists - the god knows who will pass and who will fail. And free will is not the answer - that's a cop-out when describing an all-knowing, all-powerful entity. By definition, "all-knowing" means...all-knowing. It knows what path you will take through your free will.

 

[Landlord]

It doesn't make you irrational. Nothing says there can be no religion in a post-enlightenment culture and it's hard to imagine humanity ever running out of its supply of wonder.

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism. If it weren't, then it'd be just as crazy to be nonreligious as it would be to deny Newton's laws of motion. Then everyone would have to be either religious, or devoid of reason.

As it happens, reasonable people fall into either camp. We'd do well just to have that understanding, that neither is crazy.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational.

The definition of rationalism says, "a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response."

Me deciding to zealously following the teachings of a middle-aged Jewish carpenter, believing He was God incarnate and that he resurrected from the dead definitely does not fit within the academic definition of the word

 

[JJ Husker]

It doesn't make you irrational. Nothing says there can be no religion in a post-enlightenment culture and it's hard to imagine humanity ever running out of its supply of wonder.

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism. If it weren't, then it'd be just as crazy to be nonreligious as it would be to deny Newton's laws of motion. Then everyone would have to be either religious, or devoid of reason.

As it happens, reasonable people fall into either camp. We'd do well just to have that understanding, that neither is crazy.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational.

The definition of rationalism says, "a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response."

Me deciding to zealously following the teachings of a middle-aged Jewish carpenter, believing He was God incarnate and that he resurrected from the dead definitely does not fit within the academic definition of the word

I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you, widely known on this board to be a devout believer, felt compelled to point this out rather than to offer some reasons for your belief in a creator. Really, the nonbelievers don't need any help. They've already got our inability to provide satisfactory proof. I guess it wouldn't bother me coming from one of those guys but, from you? Kind of felt like you were cheering for the wrong team in Memorial Stadium in the middle of the game. IDK.

 

[Landlord]

I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you, widely known on this board to be a devout believer, felt compelled to point this out rather than to offer some reasons for your belief in a creator. Really, the nonbelievers don't need any help. They've already got our inability to provide satisfactory proof. I guess it wouldn't bother me coming from one of those guys but, from you? Kind of felt like you were cheering for the wrong team in Memorial Stadium in the middle of the game. IDK.

Ahh, gotcha. I guess I don't think that anyone on either side really needs much help.

I've gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to try and conjure up compelling apologetics unless it's in situations and contexts where I feel like it will be taken seriously or I have personal rapport with a person that I have seen is interested. Fact of the matter is huskerboard isn't really either of those things - nobody on this board is going to convert to team Jesus because of my posts, or at least, IF that were to happen, it would probably be from being compelled by my moments of being candid and hopefully reflecting Jesus rather than from the moments of me trying to consciously convince people of an argument.

If I'm honest, I became a Christian because I was an easily influenced kid in an environment conducive for the spread of cookie cutter white evangelicalism. That's not compelling to anyone, that's me being a product of my environment. But. That was 12+ years ago, and while I spent a good amount of that time in an isolated, exclusive, tribal Christian bubble, I've also spent a good amount of time, especially lately, distant from God, wandering, going through the prodigal motions, and either consciously or subconsciously trying to be done with the whole idea. And through all of what that has entailed, I can't escape the Christ. He continues to draw me back, to meet me on my own personal "road to Damascus", to awe me with wonder and hope and to chisel away at me towards gentleness, meekness and graciousness.

At the end of the day, I can try to give good arguments, and I think there are plenty of them, for historical evidence in support of Christianity, or the cosmological argument, or a million other different arguments, but those aren't what my faith is founded on. I've stripped away so much bullsh#t and all that's left is encounters with a living and loving God; encounters that I can't begin to wrap my head around and definitely can't explain well. That's the only kind of thing that I think can be compelling to your typical Huskerboard poster, but that comes from above, not from me

I'm just here to love God and love people, and hopefully fail a little less at both along the way.

 

[NUance]

• The universe was created by an omniscient, all powerful God. He designed the universe, including the earth and mankind. Although He is apparently very large, people cannot see him and He doesn’t talk to just anyone. He wants us to worship him.

• The universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly. Conditions were just right on some planets for life to spark into existence. Somehow that simple lifeform became able to reproduce. It evolved into mankind and all life on earth.

So we've trotted out three pages of posts discussing and criticizing the first choice above—the God choice. But nary a word on the second choice. How is that more plausible than the first?

What sort of random conditions led to the creation of the first living cell?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Just because you think the thought of a God is totally hogwash, you are still willing to believe in a Big Bang from matter that always has existed. That matter had no "beginning".

Because there's gathering evidence that it's true.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

That what's true?

 

[JJ Husker]

I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you, widely known on this board to be a devout believer, felt compelled to point this out rather than to offer some reasons for your belief in a creator. Really, the nonbelievers don't need any help. They've already got our inability to provide satisfactory proof. I guess it wouldn't bother me coming from one of those guys but, from you? Kind of felt like you were cheering for the wrong team in Memorial Stadium in the middle of the game. IDK.

Ahh, gotcha. I guess I don't think that anyone on either side really needs much help.

I've gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to try and conjure up compelling apologetics unless it's in situations and contexts where I feel like it will be taken seriously or I have personal rapport with a person that I have seen is interested. Fact of the matter is huskerboard isn't really either of those things - nobody on this board is going to convert to team Jesus because of my posts, or at least, IF that were to happen, it would probably be from being compelled by my moments of being candid and hopefully reflecting Jesus rather than from the moments of me trying to consciously convince people of an argument.

If I'm honest, I became a Christian because I was an easily influenced kid in an environment conducive for the spread of cookie cutter white evangelicalism. That's not compelling to anyone, that's me being a product of my environment. But. That was 12+ years ago, and while I spent a good amount of that time in an isolated, exclusive, tribal Christian bubble, I've also spent a good amount of time, especially lately, distant from God, wandering, going through the prodigal motions, and either consciously or subconsciously trying to be done with the whole idea. And through all of what that has entailed, I can't escape the Christ. He continues to draw me back, to meet me on my own personal "road to Damascus", to awe me with wonder and hope and to chisel away at me towards gentleness, meekness and graciousness.

At the end of the day, I can try to give good arguments, and I think there are plenty of them, for historical evidence in support of Christianity, or the cosmological argument, or a million other different arguments, but those aren't what my faith is founded on. I've stripped away so much bullsh#t and all that's left is encounters with a living and loving God; encounters that I can't begin to wrap my head around and definitely can't explain well. That's the only kind of thing that I think can be compelling to your typical Huskerboard poster, but that comes from above, not from me

I'm just here to love God and love people, and hopefully fail a little less at both along the way.

Awesome answer. Thank you.

I'm getting closer to realizing that no team changing is likely to take place in this venue but I still approach it like it may happen from time to time. I would be better served to try it your way. I have the feeling I would find it far less frustrating and that I wouldnt lose my cool like I have a couple times already in this thread.