Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I was wondering what the interest would be in discussing some apologetic arguments on some selected topic (cosmological, design, biblical, hx jesus, etc)? We could choose a topic, and several members present an argument for Christianity's truth and have one to two members who play "devils advocate" from some particular point of view. I personally would be willing to fill either role if we do want to do this.

Jeffrey - I salute you! A person who is willing to stand up and say "I take personal responsibility for the direction this board has taken and will do something positive about it" is a real gem. I'm behind your effort 100%. I can provide some scientific evidence for the existence of God if requested.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny! But if there's a Buddhist Hell - He's in it!

How that? I'm practicing. Great idea Jeffrey.

I am totally interested. I can play the role of question-asker. :-)

I'm an athiest, but I quite like Christianity. I'd like to speak in favour of Christianity and maybe a Christian could speak against it. That might be fun.

I'm all for attacking anything. (except Jesus - There's a line I cannot cross, even playing the devil's advocate.)

I wouldn't worry about Jesus, He's pretty tough.

sorry, didn't mean to sound rude. Jesus need not be involved in the conversation, we could talk about the history of Church for instance (after Jesus).

Great! Let's decide what the topic of interest is first then we can see who we want to be the "devils advocate(s)." Options could include:

Arguments for a theistic God:

Cosmological, Design, Moral, Ontological (gah!), etc.

Historical Christian evidences:

The historical Jesus - life and self-awareness (divine)
Resurrection of Jesus
Biblical reliability

Or we could go defensive:

Answer to the problem of Evil (we just did this one with Genni's thread though ...)
Answer to the hiddenness of God
Etc.

I'll be off soon, sorry. Work to do. Tomorrow hopefully. If you're interested in my vote it's for the first and last options (Not Historical Christian evidences). My previous message was more about the middle ages etc...

I say tackle the big one: Does God exist - then WHICH god?

Anthony comment:
"I wouldn't worry about Jesus, He's pretty tough."

I use that phrase often. I applaud your confidence.

Good choice, defining the question might get tricky. I mean there are some Physicists out there who think we live in a simulation - simulations require programmers - God the programmer?

Let's keep the pseudo-scientists out of this and deal with what we all have right in front of us.

I've attempted to argue with people who claimed we live in a Matrix - it was fun for a few minutes...

God the programmer? That's a fun approach.

You're quite right, they are pseudo-scientists. I think of the universe like a box, we only care about what goes on inside the box, not outside. Even if it were a simulation, it's real enough for us.

Although God exists independently of creation, so He'd be outside too

And yet God keeps all of his toys in the box. (Angels, Demons, Prophets, Chosen nations, Salvation plan...)

I wouldn't be good in this debate, I'm unfamiliar with evidence used by Christians.

I've heard some arguments
- Conscience
- Miracles
- Faith
- The inherent goodness of Jesus' word

what would you add? I don't think there's much meat in the debate, you believe it or you don't.

I guess any evidence used for Creation can be used for God.

That is a difficult discussion to make progress in.

I prefer the Good and Evil route. OR the facts of reality. Or following the history of Isreal - right up to the present mess.
Also seeing how the world religions acts and bounce off of Christianity is fascinating.

Christian v. Secular morality?

Let me throw out a topic and if no-one objects then we can run with it (i'll probably start a new thread eventually and link to it). How about we talk about the existence of God - specifically, we could have a science bent sense several have mentioned an interest in that.

How about an argument for the existence of God from the phenomena of cosmology or consciousness?

Anthony, it would be very interesting to hear you argue pro God if you are up to it. I wouldn't mind be "devil's advocate" with another user. What do people think?

I am interested...I'm especially interested in the arguments pertaining to consciousness.

I have had many arguments on this point and they usually go nowhere. Let me best illustrate with a bit of a story.

Imagine if there you light a match and some people would live inside the flame then for them the lighting would be what is for us the big bang. They would come up with all kind of cosmologist concepts, maybe including describing the person that struck the match as a creator or God. However that person did not invent fire, nor even matches.

This is usually where these arguments end and also one of the reason why the religious argument on cosmology has lost steam.

Just my experience.

Wow, Cay, I'm impressed. I can't believe the voice of reason has entered this argument.

It remains my opinion that the most likely scenario is that we have a creator. However, the odds seem to me very high that this creator also had a creator. If humanity survives and outgrows the earth, I suspect we, too, will become creators alongside many others.

Wow Lee, how Mormon of you. (just ribbing you buddy! Kinda.)

My way is a bit weird here, but I try it anyhow.

When you look at that we are living in what people call a three dimensional world and only consist on one dimension, which is length and another dimension called time you have to ask yourself why length stretches in 3 dimensions and time just in one, when it is easy enough to see that with parallel universes there is the possibility of time going sideways as well.

The problem is at that time our so precious reason would break and most science as well, which in itself is the reason most will not go there.

With scientific areas such as string theory we almost know of pocket dimensions and in quantum theory we know that time is not a fixed as we like it to be.

Now the bible is the only religious book where all will still work, even if wisdom is seen as a dimension rather than as steady increasing thing. The same is true on certainty or other things we see as a fixed point, the only reference on what remains in God and love. This is why can believe the bible and I also see it written by God, not by man, as it contain present and future in one sentence, beyond reason or any other restricted thing.

I still believe (believe not prove) that God created me, but since God has called upon me to create other things the actual creator is as important as the ultimate creator as it is all created in his image.

The Kalam cosmological argument gives a very good argument for the existence of God. Here is what it says.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) We know the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang
3) the universe must have a cause
The cause would have to be uncaused, timeless, space less, immaterial and powerful and is best explained by the God of the Bible

When you look at the Big Bang you see how fine tuned the universe is for there to be life when you examine the expansion rate of the universe and the laws of nature. The fine tuning is so precise that the odds of them being by chance are astronomical. Most critics say you cannot prove they did not happen by chance and that is true but the I question what makes the most sense and when you combine all the evidence an intelligent creator is the best explanation.

Huge leap after step 3, Ajallred.

Lee, why do you say a huge leap. Has there ever been anything created that did not have a creator and if we know that at some point in time the universe was created what is the best explanation for that.

The huge leap is "The cause would have to be uncaused, timeless, space less, immaterial and powerful and is best explained by the God of the Bible"

For someone to create space and time they would have to be outside of space and time.

I would assume so, yes, in their own space and time.

Should we do the Kalam then? I'm down with that, just waiting to see who wants to offer the argument.

I find the Kalam boring - go on without me. Just not my area of interest.

I find Kalam is wrong in 2. as the Brane cosmology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_c... shows clearly that the the big bang was just a step in the creation, certainly not the start. There are also inherit problems in the big bang theory such as the flatness, which are nicely explained away with exactly the big bang only being a step.

I think Kalam has a point, but relies heavily on our dimensions. If you look in the bible God has at least created one other race, namely the angels that somehow live outside or in wider dimensions. Since the bible does not say that it describes all the creations of god he may be removed many levels beyond. However I always find it dangerous to explain this as we as humans are so limited.

I think the huge leap is to the God "of the Bible." Why not the God of Deism or Islam or Judaism?

I find all of these arguments helpful but I think there is a danger; though this danger applies to apologetics in general. How much do we already give in to the worldview of naturalism when we employ many of our arguments? We kind of relegate God to a few particular jobs: God creates, occasionally does miracles. The default view, even for Christians, is naturalism, we just allow God a place in our naturalism.

Of course, we wouldn't say this. But it is how we tend to live subconsciously.

It is important to remember that these arguments, at least as begun by people like Anselm and Aquinas, were never meant for philosophy classrooms and coffee shops. They played a different function in a way of looking at the world that is foreign even to us Christians today. I found this quote by Jack Caputo interesting:

“While Anselm was certainly offering an argument, the context in which Anselm does so makes it clear that the formal argument plays a completely supporting role in a larger drama, that Anselm is saying to his fellow monks – he was addressing monks, not the American Philosophical Association – that their religious life of prayer and personal sacrifice should be buoyed by the idea that God is a being of such perfection, irrepressibly, overflowingly there. Anselm was trying to awaken in them the idea that God is first, last and always; the alpha and the omega; above us and within us and around us; before us and after us; inside us and outside us; so much so that it is better to think not that God is in us as that we are in god. IN other words, Anselm was formulating an idea of God that expressed his religious experience of living 'through Him, and with Him, and in Him,” as the ancient liturgical hymn says, and he did not think this a freestanding argument (=philosophy). In a sense he was saying that this is not an argument (in the modern sense) but an effort at conceptualizing or clarifying something that is intuitively obvious to all these people who experience God in their daily lives” (15)

David comment:
" We kind of relegate God to a few particular jobs: God creates, occasionally does miracles. The default view, even for Christians, is naturalism, we just allow God a place in our naturalism."

Very true.

It's the God of Calvinism (and the Bible) that is heavily involved in every step of our life and salvation. And yet many liberal Christians wonder where God is: With all that freedom - who needs God? Unless something goes south of course. Then they beg this deity to interfere - yet insist on delivering their own salvation through freedom.

John 1:
29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

That's one busy job.

Rod, the only thing I like on the study on cosmology is that it offers ways around the the awful debate on conditional election (baptist and almost all churches that are in favor of adult baptism) versus the unconditional election (Calvinism & Lutherans) as if only we as human are bound by time as long as we are in our body.