/sci/ - Science & Math

>/christian discussions

LOL

>>1492208
your remarkable logic astounds me
...Spock, is that you?

>inb4 someone says those links have no citations

>>1492208
you're fucking crazy. the bible isn't the pillar of christianity.

>>1492248
what makes you think it isent?

>>1492248
0/10

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

>>1492259
that site fucking bleeds logical fallacies.

>>1492268
why so mad?
upset that you're going to hell?

It is truly a shame that so many people in our world still blindly follow religion after all of the scientific discoveries and historical documentations written in the past 200 years. Its not their faults though, they're parents brainwash it into them early on in life so it sticks with them and they end up doing the same to their own children

Try clicking on 'I don't care if absolute truth exists' for teh lulz

It isnt circular reason... IF
You test the Bible first as a legitimate Historical Document ( Which people have and it passes)
Then from there you can see if the Bible is really the Word of God

zerg fucking sucks gtfo

>>1492349
the bible is in english so god is an American

>>1492349
how would one go about determining whether or not the bible is the word of god?

sage for arrogance
good atheists dont go around proving their superiority like this

>>1492259
>Do moral absolutes exist?
No
>You sure?
Yeah
>Really sure?
Yeah
>umm... there goes my argument

Great site

>>1492427
oh wow

I noticed a lack of argument in response to this.
Did I shattered the realities christfags everywhere?

The Bible is just a book.

God is not limited to a book.

Jesus founded a Church, not a book.

You sound retarded when you use the Bible as proof that a god doesn't exist.

>>1492349
>You test the Bible first as a legitimate Historical Document ( Which people have and it passes)
Lying is a sin.

>>1492488
>Implying churches don't revolve around the bible's teachings

>>1492488
Jesus died for Adam's sin, which is detailed in Genesis. No Adam = No Original Sin = Jesus died for nothing.

>>1492505
The Bible didn't even exist until 397AD.

>>1492488
>Jesus started a religion
>One of his apostles founded a church and distorted the religion as much as he wanted

fixed

>>1492535
Paul never even fucking met Jesus.

Reported, this is not what /sci/ is for

>>1492513
>>1492535
>implying Jesus existed

OP you are a lot like me, got starcraft and psychology on the mind.

>>1492544
logic=science
OP is disproving illogical things
OP is doing science

>>1492513
Again, God is not limited to a book.

>>1492535
Jesus can also re-spawn, he just hasn't yet because he team killed.

>>1492552
*brofist*

>>1492558
Again, the only reason "God" exists is BECAUSE of that book.

>>1492553

Not the same guy here, but how is this science? Smart thinking can be done without the scientific method, and this kid didn't use it, he just disagreed with an opinion. You don't need science to disagree.

The bible written years ago, was interpreted differently back then, to the way we interpret the bibe now. So no, your argument is invalid, because the bible now revolves around how we define words and how we are educated to interpret it. You're told a story in school - that story, or most likely, a different not-story was described years ago. Therefore you are wrong, and in my opinion, seeing as I understand how it was interpreted years ago, God exists.

Next.

>>1492571
oh christ
get the fuck out of here, ego

>>1492427
Roll over and don't challenge my delusions! That's a good atheist. Here, have a biscuit.

>>1492568
Umm.. no.

16 year-olds have the most god-awful logic ever.

>>1492208
>>1492580
It's funny to see how dumb you are. You actually believe that the bible was interpreted the same back then as it is now.

>>1492606
ummm... yes.
If the Bible or some version of it didn't exist christianity would not exist.

>>1492625
That doesn't mean god wouldn't exist.

>>1492621
Tell that to the Christfags that interpret it all literally. Are you one of them?

>>1492621
the time-cube enthusiast has a point.
but that still doesn't change what OP is saying.
Modern christians follow the MODERN AND DISTORTED versions of the Bible.

>>1492629
see post
>>1492208
>God of the Bible and Christianity

>>1492629
But then we'd be faced with having a god. No one knows about. I never understood why belief is so important for this god

>>1492629
Look, for this discussion, when we refer to god, we are talking about the god of the BIBLE. No BIBLE, means that THIS god, does not exist.

>>1492639
True and original Christians follow Sacred Traditions of the Church.

Born agains and Baptists follow the Bible.

>>1492669
You mean Catholics?

I think Israel might be teaching creationism. i mean it is a country made by Jews for Jews about Jewish things

I'm glad to see a reasonable discussion among these people. Nothing is worse than DURR HURR ATHEISM IS THE DEVIL/DERP A HURR ALL CHRISTFAGS ARE RETARDS threads.

Atheist logic:
I have a theory that talks about the evolution of the Universe till today, but has nothing to do with creation.
Oh by the way, it disproves creationist.

>>1492677
Actually Jews are rather accepting of Science, like Evolution and such, and tend to be rather secular. Same goes to Muslims too (At least the more civilized ones)

>>1492669
"The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author."

-Council of the Vatican (1869-1870)

>>1492686
Evolution does throw a couple monkey wrenches into creationism.

>>1492686
Troll logic:
>I will make an unintelligible statement and pass it off as a genuine opinion to spark controversy.

>>1492711
I've seen Creationists go apeshit over it.

>>1492711
In the strict literal bible sense, but to be sure there is no god or higher power is quite a leap.

>>1492711
>monkey wrenches
Oh you clever bastard you

What if... The bible was algebra? :O

>>1492725
It isn't though, it's just a collection of stories written by a bunch of dumb kikes for kikes telling kikes myths which they ripped off from other more ancient cultures because they are jews.
Fucking Kikes.

>>1492725
then it would have been a benefit to humanity and we would be all praying to computers

>>1492725
what if...
having a 99% troll free post on /sci/ is a rare ocurrence that you should savor?

TOO MUCH SENSIBILITY IN THIS THREAD
MAKE IT STOP

This crazy motherfucking thread should be preserved as to prevent pointless atheist/theist trolling on this board.

I have to admit I love this website >>1492259

>>1492748
it's archive time

>PhD in mathematics
>any jon i want
>300k starting

Thanks for your request.
It has been added to our database and the thread will be archived as soon as enough request for that thread have been made.
This thread has been requested 5 times now.

>>1492799
>mfw perfect thread gets archived
oh hell yes

>>1492742
>>1492746
>>1492748
>>1492772
>>1492799
>>1492809
samefag op is same

Catholic theologian reporting in. Lemme read those links, I'm curious...

>>1492811
butthurt christfag is butthurt

>>1492814
knock yourself out

>>1492742
>implying OP isn't a troll

>>1492814
>catholic
Stopped reading right there. You guys are smart enough to know that the bible is bullshit, you just won't admit it.

>>1492814
>theologian
You'd have to be rather clever to become one, shame you're wallowing in denial.

Well sure, I agree that MODERN CHRISTIANS are stupid, this isn't their choice however, it's not like it isn't taught to them in schools. They're told a story in school, and it's part of school, and it explains that there is life after death. It also gives morals, it uses biased information like 'good and evil', and it makes them feel like good people. Even though it's so farfetched they seem to believe it because it makes life feel more dramatic/story-like. It's stupid, it's nice, it's wrong, it's not how the bible was interpreted years ago - therefore your whole arguement falls down because you said the BIBLE GOD doesn't exist. You don't know that I'm afraid and I'm being honest, I always am, when do I troll legitly? I never post 'no u' or something retarted. I'm a legitly good person and yes I believe in timecube, that's because I'm smart and I understand it - the only reason you guys don't believe in timecube is because you don't understand it. To you it's just "WTF AM I READING". Anyway, quit bashing the bible and God - continue bashing modern day christians but remember it's not their fault that the government poison them in this way.

>>1492868
Just curious, how do you believe the bible was interpreted.

Algebra.
God = Time.
>>1492898

>>1492923
please, don't bring your timecube crap into this...

>>1492923
I'm....okay with that.

VERDICT: THE GOD OF THE MODERN BIBLE DOES NOT EXIST
or
TIMECUBE IS TRUTH AND GOD IS ALGEBRA

>>1492686
Well, when we have evidence for at least 13billion years of existence, it does do a lot to discredit their claims that a moment the moment of creation took place 10,000 years ago.

Now if all creationists said was that God created the universe 14billion years ago, you would be right. Science would not "disprove" creationism in that form.

>>1492814
My observations:
The first site, talkorigins.org, was a list of fairly clever and thorough but ultimately baseless excuses as to why non-creationist histories couldn't possibly be true. It also included some very good responses to those claims. Short of citations for either side, the site did a good job of debunking the creationist claims.

The second site is actually very good and thought-provoking. I wouldn't call it conclusive, but it definitely has convincing things to say. I like it.

>>1492856
I'm curious. I've come to different conclusions than you have, why do you assume that I'm just in denial of yours rather than convinced of mine?

>>1492268
>>1492259

It's a troll site.

>>1492960
another site that might be interesting to you
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

>>1493033
>Why is there evil?
Oh this argument. It's actually a good one, and I can take a go at explaining it to you.

>>1492960
The second link won't work for me, and I've visited the site before with no problems.

>>1493055
Does it involve "a hurpa durr hurr, free will durrr' again? Because I am so fucking sick of that excuse.

>>1493055
i don't believe in "evil" some people are dicks and assholes but that doesn't make them "evil".

>>1493066
That's the sunday school explanation for why God lets use make mistakes. It's not well explained.

Although, the explanation for 'wherefore is there evil' does involve a few assumptions (as necessitated by the nature of inductive reasoning) that I doubt will go over with materialist, naturalist /sci/.

>>1493055
In a nutshell:

The goodness of man consists in volition of the good, perfected by cognition of the truth. It's man's nature / last end / etc to pursue good ends properly and make good decisions using his intellectual and volitive faculties. To impede on the fulfillment of this nature is evil.

inb4 mad. You all know Christianity isn't materialist. Disagree with these assumptions, but I'm explaining why, within the Christian worldview, it's in the nature of God to allow evil.

What is that in OP's pic?

>>1493122
What about Original Sin? Where basically all of mankind is sinful, and can only do sinful things, and they need Jesus? Your argument is sound, but It sounds more Islamic than Christian. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

>>1493122
good and evil are relative terms.
example:
bacon is good. from a vegans point of view bacon is evil. so its all relative. there is no good, there is no evil, there just is, and it is up to the individual to decide what is what

>>1493122
Man's creator is a god who perfectly wills the good, ergo man is fundamentally good, if capable of imperfection. Short of doing violence to man's nature, God works within man's nature toward the end of man's perfection. He does not force man to do this or that, or plainly make a person think or know something. Rather, he provided sacraments, divine revelation, etc. He gives means by which man may come to God, but does not force.

>>1493155
Original sin isn't the idea that man is inherently evil and can only do sinful things. It means that man suffers from concupiscence, the tendency to do things other than what is right and good. In technical, ethical terms, man can act out of fear, ignorance, and temptation (formal definitions of those available upon request, but otherwise I won't spend my time doing that).

Basically, the Fall doesn't mean man is inherently evil, just fallible.

>>1493156
Vegans don't think bacon is inherently evil, just that the killing of animals is an evil means that does not justify the good end of feeding people.
Non-vegans don't think that bacon is inherently good, just a means toward a desirable, good end (nutritioin and deliciousness).

That aside, disagreement as to what is true doesn't imply that truth is subjective.

Suppose my father gives me a jar of marbles and wants me to count how many there are. I count one by one, and determine that there are 200. My friend Kees is clever, he counts them in groups of ten to keep better track, and comes out with 210. My other friend Joe is even cleverer; he finds the mass of one marble, the mass of the jar both full and empty, and does the math to conclude that there are 190 marbles. Does that imply that the number of marbles is subjective? No, just that at least two of us counted wrong.

>>1493155
My argument is actually straight out of Catholic ethics. And believe it or not, Christian and Islamic theology is not terribly distance.

-pause while /sc/i reads-

>>1493252
Fine points there, as a non-theist (I wouldn't call myself an Athiest, more agnostic really) I think they're pretty good.

>>1493221
what i was trying to state, is that there is no such thing as absolute good or absolute evil, and it depends on who was looking at the subject.

your point works well if you can quantify the subject but in subjects that you cannot be quantified then it is subjective.

>>1493274
If you're subjectivist there's nothing I can do about that.

As long as you realize the logical and moral implications of what you're saying.

>>1493273
I agree. As long as you don't subscribe to any of the self-fulfilling philosophies (nihilism, solipsism, materialism) Catholic theology is actually really good.

>>1493137
overseer, evolution of the overlord in SC2

>>1493291
i try to find the most probable truth with the information available to me. if future information contradicts past information then i will revise what i perceive as the truth.

i also think it is quite sad to be tied down by morals, i can see how morals would be necessary to the normal person, but if you look at your subject in a cost-benefit analysis you would discover that what is morally right is not usually the best action to take.

>>1492868
I know I will regret it but.... what is a time cube?

Don't lie,
The only reason you christians believe in God is because you seem to think you can. "If God doesn't exist, then why can I think of God?"

Point A.
Why the fuck is God in a human image? It never says once in the bible that God is human image, it says God is male and female - You are able to get a male fish, or a female ant, so why do you insist that it is a human sitting in the sky looking down on you.

Point B.
Why do you believe a book that you truly don't understand? You just put faith into it that it is the word of God, (which it is), but you don't understand those words. You think of it as a literally unbelievable, unlogical story. It's not like you have any evidence or any solid truth to back up any of your beliefs.

I believe in God. I understand the bible. My interpretations are not the same as yours. I can freely say FUCK FUCK FUCK and not a single FUCK will be given. I can freely say I understand and have proof as to why God exists. I know for a fact that there is a possiblity of life after death. You know none of this, you just put faith into a unbelievable story, forced upon you during education.
>>1493252

>>1493357
FSM brofist

>>1493357
Lol I actually start to like ego.
Although most of the time I think 'wtf am I reading?'.

>>1493347
My morals drive me to respect women, act kindly to others, be honest, and work hard for my success rather than cheating.

As a result, I have a fulfilling relationship with a great girl (without pregnancies because we aren't married), many friends who enjoy my company and appreciate me, the trust of my peers and superiors, and the discipline that comes with working hard consistently.

I'm not sure about moral action typically being different from wise action, sir.

>>1493357
My faith doesn't come from reading a book I don't understand. Almost all of my theology comes from theistic philosophy and from meditation on the ideas of plato, aquinas, and adler.

It's the belief that time is cubic and not linear.

Which means time is static, it is not commensing, but rather a static-box around us, and we move through it.

The clocks in a household have 3, 6, 9, 12 as points. It should be: 4, 8, 12, 16. It should only judge the rotation of Earth, not time, because time is static, and we move through time.

Time isn't aging, we age, time doesn't. The government create the illusion that time is progressing - it's not in any way, we're progressing through time...

That being said, I'm a differen't kind of cubist. I believe in unity, where as the other cubists believe in change/order. I believe the time cube is the God described in the bible, and I don't worship, but I believe the time cube to be our God. So I love the cube, and I spread it, because it's logical and very beautiful.

What's not beautiful is the fact not everyone believes or understands it. That's what makes me feel like suicide.
>>1493354

>>1493403
but where do their theistic philosophies come from?

>>1493357
Continued troll-feeding:
As for point A, nobody ever said that there was a human in the sky. The imago dei (image of God) refers to the idea that man shares many aspects of God's nature (albeit imperfectly). Specifically, both have faculties of volition, cognition, and action.

I agree with your morals, I don't agree with your beliefs, because you' don't truly understand what you're believing. It's semi-spiritual, in the way it relates to you being able to see/feel/move etc - but it's not as spiritual as you make it out to be; praying/profanity/no sex before marrige, etc.
>>1493403

>>1493471
Deductive reasoning and observation, I s'pose. That's how philosophy works.

>>1493444
>>1492888
Double Triples, also time cube numbers.

>>1493444
Is that only a thought experiment, or is there real maths behind it?
Where is the difference if time is static and we move through it and time is not static and it is progressing?

>>1493384
i treat women the same as men because i don't really see a difference between the two, (not a moral thing).
i act kindly to others because it does not help to get people pissed off and uncooperative with you (not a moral thing).
i am generally honest unless telling the truth puts me in a disadvantageous position (not a moral thing).
i work hard because cheating will not teach me anything and i strive for more knowledge (not a moral thing).


i was not speaking of wise actions put purely from a cost-benefit point of view.

>>1493533
>"The second rule of thermodynamics is violated by life"

Sorry, what? How does an extended chemical reaction defy the laws of entropy?

>>1493357
Not who you're talking to but i just wanted to make a comment.
Point A.
Why the fuck is God in a human image? It never says once in the bible that God is human image, it says God is male and female - You are able to get a male fish, or a female ant, so why do you insist that it is a human sitting in the sky looking down on you.
Why does the electron have hella models that are being taught in school? Why is the solar system depicted the way it is in books? Because it is easiest to understand, and to depict in drawings this way.
Point B.
Why do you believe a book that you truly don't understand?
Do you TRUELY understand all the theoretical physics behind the big bang? I would bet that people who believe in the bible have a better understanding of the bible than people who believe in the big bang do of the big bang (as a whole).

trolling level reached: MODERATE

fucking stop it already

>>1493553
I think I'm misunderstanding you. Correct me if I'm wrong:
First you said that the moral thing to do is usually not the best thing to do in a cost-benefit sense.
But then I listed four moral actions, and you listed the same four and explained why cost-benefit analysis leads you to make the same choices.

>>1493606
We will never stop.
Not until maximum trolling levels are reached.

The principle behind it is opposites.
You see this cat? It has two sides which hold remarkable symmetry with each other. This occurence happens throughout life.

It means that four days occur on earth at once, and the universe is not expanding, but rather infinite. It means that if you die, you either earn cubic salvation or cubic doom. It explains everything, even up to the beginning of existence, as well as evolution and many other aspects of life. Let's keep on topic though, I've been discussing the cube all day, It's time for a break x)
>>1493534

>>1493606
Maybe I'm missing something, but who's trolling?

>>1493633
i agree, although ego might be

>>1493633
not entirely sure, probably himself.

Himself being me, or the guy I'm replying to?

You are, unintentionally misinterpreting the bible; whilst in-front of people who can interpret it correctly.
>>1493633

>>1493663
the guy you're replying to.
I think.

>>1493677
You are... misusing! your punctuation?

You just, committed sin, by your rules. Enjoy hell.
>>1493693

i am hungry, its 3 am here

>>1493704
It's where all the cool kids are, anyway.

Started off good, then devolved into shit.
Too good to be true.

can anyone here prove the existence of a "Devil"?

>>1493704
hitler is in heaven, how does that make you feel? (if god exists)

>>1493728
>define "true"

>>1493730
even less than you can prove god. i mean even in the bible the devil was just chillin while god was busy killin ppl

>>1493731
Feels good man, actually.

>>1493752
:|

>>1493763
Gives me a lot of hope.
I'm actually not sold on the idea that a normal person is even capable of meeting the requirements for damnation.

>>1493752
>>1493752
>>1493752
Hey mister theologian, can you answer these 10 questions:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/09/ten-questions-to-ask-your-pastor.html

>>1493752
i can just imagine the butthurt of christians who went to heaven (if god exists) and see hitler chillin just pat the gate

>>1493776
past* the gate

I am SO FUCKING EXCITED FOR STARCRAFT 2

>>1493787
I have it here.

>>1493807
that deeply saddens me.

and so, this great and insighful thread devolves into /v/ material.
>>1493787

>/sci/ - Religion & Philosop­hy

>>1493826
>/sci/ - Trolls & Trolling
fix'd.

bump

>>1493775
>>1493775
That sure shut him up.

>>1493562
I believe heavily in the bible it says god made man in his own image... derp... and people who believe big bang dont claim to fully understand it, they just strive to learn more, bible smackers are following circular logic and sit comfy in there own ignorance. ignorance being key, cause most if not all of them are to danm stupid to learn the difference between a story book and reality.
Die in a hole troll

>>1493858
DAMN STRAIGHT! Lets get a high-five.

>>1493858
>implying I'm not formulating genius responses

trolls trolling god trolling trolls trolling themselves.

>>1493874
implying this is me. I'll be using a trip now.

>>1493858
>>1493867
Actually I received a phone call, but let me get on that.

>>1493866
>people who believe big bang dont claim to fully understand it, they just strive to learn more
Dude that is the biggest bunch of bullshit on earth. Maybe the people on here strive to understand it better (and not even everyone) but the general populous is just as uneducated as Christians.

>>1493775
1. Honestly, I don't have a good answer. I won't insult you and claim that I do. It's on my checklist of things I don't understood and want to about catholicism.

2. No, which is why that's what happened.

3. Probably because He has established a lasting form of divine revelation in the form of scriptures. That being said, it takes a lot of hubris to speak for God, and I won't do that.

4. I'm not aware that it says that.

5. Because Christianity isn't materialist, and the relation of personality and emotions to chemical interactions doesn't have any bearing the existence (or lack of) a soul.

continued in next post.

>>1493967
Typo:
"No, which is why that's not what happened."

6. Judaism was true up until Jesus came along.

7. Where does the bible say that a majority of people are going to hell?

8. He did, but what with the Fall, humans are fallible.

9. God does not hide himself. It is the nature of truth that logical discourse and deductive reasoning require assumptions. Ultimately, any conclusion requires faith.

10. That's the current item on my aforementioned checklist. I'm halfway through (as partially described in my earlier posts), but until then I'm afraid I don't have a good answer here.

Phew. That's my best attempt at answering some of the fundamental argument against Christianity in two 4chan posts.

Let the trolling commence (or hopefully not).

>>1494076
>7. Where does the bible say that a majority of people are going to hell?

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

(Matthew 7:13)

>>1494129
I'm not sure I would take a metaphor, translated from another language, so literally. As I understand it, this passage does not contrast salvation and damnation, but righteousness and sinfulness.

>>1494138
I'm not sure I would take an extremely old book, tranlated from many languages, and having so many contradictions so seriously.

>>1494150
see
>>1493403

It's a BLAST being a Catholic on /sci/. You should all try it.

>Probably because He has established a lasting form of divine revelation in the form of scriptures
Okay, so why do we have to go off an ancient text when people then supposedly got to actually see god? In what way does a book count as divine revelation?

>9. God does not hide himself.
What the hell? Where can I go to physically view him and talk to him?

>>1494157
So you take Aquinas seriously, but not the bible?

Divine revelation is divine intervention for the purpose of revealilng his truth. I'd say divinely inspired texts come under that heading.

>>1494176
You sure you read what I said? I never said he was empirically detectable.

>>1494195
I never said I didn't take the Bible seriously, just that it's not the primary source of my theology.

>>1494204
You dodged my other question:
>Okay, so why do we have to go off an ancient text when people then supposedly got to actually see god?
And what do you mean by "god doesn't hide himself"? If he isn't detectable in any way, isn't that hidden? And you never really answered the question of why there is so much religious confusion, you just did the usual hand-waving routine.

Furthermore, why should I believe that the bible is divinely inspired at all when it contains hundreds of contradictions?
http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

>>1494247
It was never my intention to dodge anything, my apologies. Let me clarify.

The question said that god hides himself by making faith a necessary step to concluding theism. In response, I pointed out that this is not God hiding himself, but a simple result of the nature of truth, and indeed that all conclusions take faith as a necessary step.

>>1494204
>You sure you read what I said? I never said he was empirically detectable.

SURE AS HELL SOUNDS LIKE HE'S HIDING HIMSELF THEN.

if you're trying to analyze the bible as a literal historical document you're doing it VERY VERY WRONG

>>1494259
Because it is remarkably consistent in it's teachings.

If you take any document containing figurative language completely literally, it WILL contradict itself.

>>1494321
typo: "its teachings"

>>1494283
Why is faith a necessary step? Are you using "faith" to mean anything not deductively provable? So we all have "faith" that the external world is real, rather than being solipsists? Is that what you mean? Direct sensory evidence is not faith. And if faith is only required in this sense, then why can't god reveal himself to us? We would still be using faith to believe that it was in fact god, and that the whole world was not simultaneously hallucinating. Is that enough faith? You believe that god revealed himself to biblical persons, so why not now? Why must we use so much more blind faith?

>>1494354
Yes, that is basically what I mean by faith. And sensory information does require faith. I presupposes that our senses are reliable, accurate means toward the cognition of the truth.

God revealed himself to biblical persons, just as he does now. Either way, it requires faith.

It's also worth noting that direct sensory evidence is not necessary to come to know God, as anyone who subscribes to a theistic philosopher with the need for a holy book can tell you.

Predestination

>>1494391
Yet another typo:
"theistic philosophy without the need for a holy book"

>>1494321
So what? I'm sure lots of books are "remarkably consistent" in their teachings. And it isn't all that consistent - just look at the bottom right under "What must I do to be saved?" - arguably the most important teaching. Lots of the other contradictions are not from "metaphors" but from crap that is supposedly historically accurate, like, for example, Jesus's birth date:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

>>1494421
The coming of Christ changed a lot of things about the state of man, sin, etc. So yes, there will be inconsistencies there.

Dunno what to tell you about Jesus' birth date, I'm not a historian.

>>1494391
>>1494391
He reveals himself now, huh? That's news to me. Why doesn't he reveal himself to everyone in the world? You didn't answer my question:
>And if faith is only required in this sense, then why can't god reveal himself to us? We would still be using faith to believe that it was in fact god, and that the whole world was not simultaneously hallucinating. Is that enough faith? You believe that god revealed himself to biblical persons, so why not now?

Why must we use so much more blind faith?

>>1494459
He can reveal himself, and he does through divine revelation in the form of scripture.

>>1494459
And if you could keep the sarcasm to a minimum, I would appreciate it. I'm making an honest effort to answer what are in fact very good question in the span of a few minutes each.

>>1494482

But they were all written by people. Why not believe other books too?

>>1494482
standard "the bible is proof that christianity is true" bullshit

>>1494498
Personally I made the decision through reason. I was already theistic, so I looked at the theologies of many religions, from big names like judaism, christianity, and islam, to stuff like pantheism. After examining each, it seemed clear to me that Catholic theology was totally in line with what reason already showed, so I went with that.

Yahweh is EXACTLY like Xerxes from 300.

>>1494503
The Bible is not the reason I believe in God. See
>>1494507

>be OP
>start an thread to end the science vs. religion bullshit on /sci/
>archived, alive, on the front page, and with over 200 replies
>everything went better than expected

>>1494482
I mean "revelation" in the sense of visibly appearing to us, not us having to take the word of a primitive ancient Near-Eastern tribe. Your scriptures are full of error and contradiction. There is no reason to believe the scriptures are divinely inspired. Please stop dodging my question of why YHWH does not reveal himself in the way he supposed did in the Bronze Age.

>>1494517
I stated earlier, I don't have such hubris that I would presume to know why God or does not do something. I made my best guess, that's all I can give you.

It's possible that the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh started out as the chaotic god Yaw/Yam, a dragon god who was cast into the sea by Baal.

>>1494491
If you could keep the casuistry to a minimum, I would appreciate it.

>>1494527
I never imagined hypothetical ethical situations for the sake of examination. Maybe I'm missing something here.

>>1494526
Actually, let's listen to this guy. 50 posts later I'm quite tired.

>>1494537
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casuistry

- 4 dictionary results
cas·u·ist·ry
   
/ˈkæʒuəstri/ Show Spelled[kazh-oo-uh-stree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning

>>1494526
Well, speaking of Yahweh and mythology, there's an interesting PhD thesis you should read:
http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-03192004-135203/

Specifically:
>The argument from mythology and syncretism demonstrates that the discourse of Yahweh’s religion and the sacred stories and poems in which he features contain numerous parallels to the myths, legends, folklore and superstitions found in other pagan religions. There are also marked traces of syncretism between the cult and theology of Yahweh and the ideologies of the Israelites' neighbours which, in each case, predates Yahwism. This suggests that Yahweh’s ontological status may very well not be all that different from that of El, Baal, Zeus or Maduk.

I discussed this with this theologian guy on here before, but it didn't go anywhere.

As a final argument, what short of divine guidance could have prompted me to create a fort as perfect as the one I'm in now?

Pic related, it's my comfortable, large, soundproof fort large enough for one person plus one slightly smaller person. (read: chicks dig my fort)

>>1494568
Mhm. That's what I thought.

/thread