please tell me which explanation of the universe is more probable

[molitov bankroll]

As an impartial observer, please tell me which explanation of the universe is more probable.


Option A: Christianity is the way. I am indoctrinated at an early age to believe that Christianity is the way. All of my family and most of my friends reinforce this belief. I am pushed to believe that the laws of physics did not apply 2000 years ago. Although everything I encounter in my everyday life contradicts this disbelief in the laws of physics.

Option B: The sum total of the probabilities that any other religion invented by man is correct.

Option C: I let go of my niavete, my indoctrination, my fear of death and my desire for acceptance. I think rationally and abstractly and realize that we as humans cannot know or understand God or some other Creator or if such a thing exists. Therefore religon amounts to man made guessing about something that is unknowable.

[bigbrother36]

Christianity and physics are not contradictory. Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. Christianity and the Big Bang Theory are not contradictory. etc.

I vote for option C, it is then that you may come to know God.

[Sharkey]

A few items:

The laws of physics obviously don’t apply to the Creator of the same.

If naivete, indoctrination, fear of death and desire for acceptance were your motivations, they were probably taking you further from, rather than closer to, God.

And a quote from Francis Bacon: “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

If your search for God is a sincere one, I am sure it will be successful.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity and physics are not contradictory. Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. Christianity and the Big Bang Theory are not contradictory. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]
I take it then, that you don't think of christianity as being defined by that ridicilous book, because the bible clearly contradicts the laws of physics, evolution, the big bang and even itself.

[Pauwl]

How exactly is C an explanation of the universe?

A and B assign a means to creating the universe through some form of deity and hence give some explanation of the universe, while C just states that we don't know and can't know. So, how can I assign a probability to C to compare with the my subjective assigned probabilities of the other two choices?

In terms or which position is the most rational, I would choose C.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity and physics are not contradictory. Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. Christianity and the Big Bang Theory are not contradictory. etc.

I vote for option C, it is then that you may come to know God.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity and physics are not contradictory. Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. Christianity and the Big Bang Theory are not contradictory. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]
I take it then, that you don't think of christianity as being defined by that ridicilous book, because the bible clearly contradicts the laws of physics, evolution, the big bang and even itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the ridiculous interpretation that some put on that book that causes the problems with being rational about science.

chez

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]


And a quote from Francis Bacon: “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”



[/ QUOTE ]

I love bad poetry

You know this is crap right?

The poets always know how to say it, but never know what it is

Cambraceres

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Option A: Christianity is the way. I am indoctrinated at an early age to believe that Christianity is the way. All of my family and most of my friends reinforce this belief. I am pushed to believe that the laws of physics did not apply 2000 years ago. Although everything I encounter in my everyday life contradicts this disbelief in the laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I have given this the greatest probabililty. You shouldn't be asking questions about physics 2000 years ago. If you want to see if miracles are possible then see if they are in the here and now. You shouldn't just accept what you were taught but test it to see if any is true..

[ QUOTE ]
Option C: I let go of my niavete, my indoctrination, my fear of death and my desire for acceptance. I think rationally and abstractly and realize that we as humans cannot know or understand God or some other Creator or if such a thing exists. Therefore religon amounts to man made guessing about something that is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you are naive, gullable, fearful of death, and desire acceptance. But the bible teaches against every one of those things you listed. You should definately think rationally and realize that we as humans cannot know or understand God in his entirety.

All the best,

Mark

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But the bible teaches against every one of those things you listed. You should definately think rationally and realize that we as humans cannot know or understand God in his entirety.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible teaches ignorance and that close mindedness is OK, nothing else.

If you, as human, cannot know or understand god in its entirety (and I would say not even in part.. LOL) then stop talking/posting as if you did. Your arrogance should be kept to your puplit where people come voluntarily not to a secular open debate forum.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
As an impartial observer, please tell me which explanation of the universe is more probable.


Option A: Christianity is the way. I am indoctrinated at an early age to believe that Christianity is the way. All of my family and most of my friends reinforce this belief. I am pushed to believe that the laws of physics did not apply 2000 years ago. Although everything I encounter in my everyday life contradicts this disbelief in the laws of physics.

Option B: The sum total of the probabilities that any other religion invented by man is correct.

Option C: I let go of my niavete, my indoctrination, my fear of death and my desire for acceptance. I think rationally and abstractly and realize that we as humans cannot know or understand God or some other Creator or if such a thing exists. Therefore religon amounts to man made guessing about something that is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is there so much dishonesty in this forum? Your wording of this “question” makes it obvious that you are not an “impartial observer”, nor are you looking for the opinions of “impartial observers”, or are even asking a question at all. If you want to bash theists, just do it honestly without the smoke & mirrors. Your hatred is welcomed here.

[Lestat]

Of course, you and I both know that I'm gonna be somewhat biased, but I don't look at this post as bashing. I think he layed out the issues very plainly and asked what are the probablities for each.

Why do you feel it's bashing, Mike? He cites 3 options and asks which is most probably. I admit he doesn't hide what his answer is and could've left out any personal bias in describing option #3. Otherwise, I think it's a good post that tries to induce logic.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You shouldn't be asking questions about physics 2000 years ago. </font>

Please get real. If you're going to make a statement like this, at least try to provide some rationale behind it. What possible reason do we have to think physical laws are any different today than they were 2000 years ago?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And a quote from Francis Bacon: “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”



[/ QUOTE ]

I love bad poetry

You know this is crap right?

The poets always know how to say it, but never know what it is

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]

Stunningly cogent. Would you care to elaborate on why "this is crap"?

[bigbrother36]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Christianity and physics are not contradictory. Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. Christianity and the Big Bang Theory are not contradictory. etc.



I take it then, that you don't think of christianity as being defined by that ridicilous book, because the bible clearly contradicts the laws of physics, evolution, the big bang and even itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible also contradicts itself. There are 2 creation stories in Genesis that don't quite jive. The gospel of John has the events that lead up to the Passion occuring on different days than the other 3 gospels. I'm sure there are more. Bible literalism is, IMO, a total crock. Christ spoke in parables, not absolutes. God called prophets not stenographers.

The main thing about bible literalism is that the whole notion itself contradicts the bible. Paul's letter to the Ephesians states that we are saved through faith. Arguing for the infallability and absoluteness of the bible is an act of the faithless. Saying you believe in something because it is true is much different than saying you believe in something, in spite of evidence that it may not be true. One leads to salvation, the other leads to today's Republican party. But that's a whole nother flame bait thread...

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you and I both know that I'm gonna be somewhat biased, but I don't look at this post as bashing. I think he layed out the issues very plainly and asked what are the probablities for each.

Why do you feel it's bashing, Mike? He cites 3 options and asks which is most probably. I admit he doesn't hide what his answer is and could've left out any personal bias in describing option #3. Otherwise, I think it's a good post that tries to induce logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
C’mon Lestat... “I let go of my niavete, my indoctrination, my fear of death and my desire for acceptance?” Surely you don’t think these are the words of someone looking for objectivity.

[ QUOTE ]
I think he could have layed out the issues very plainly and asked what are the probablities for each.

[/ QUOTE ]
There... fyp