Alien (your 476)
I appreciate that, but I was asked why I am a Christian. You are not convinced by the evidence, but I am.
and
I was asked why I am a Christian and this is part of it.
1} OK, point taken. I was approaching it as an argument but yes my original question was what made you convert; though weren't you a Christian in your childhood and something about a colliery disaster that made your parents question things?
Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something". The word God has different connotations and implications for people, by that I mean, they unconsciously attach their preconceived ideas to it. As you admit the primal cause could be anything even a force or 'mechanism' of some law or pattern of energy.
No, it is not disingenuous and deceitful. I have never claimed that, say, the Kalam argument takes us to the Christian definition of God on its own, but gets us as far as above. The argument from objective morality, if correct, shows us that this "God" is a source of morality, so now we have a spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, plausibly personal, moral entity for whom the term "God" seems, to me at least, reasonable. With the bit about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this would take us to the Christian God from that generic understanding of God.
3} 'Objective morality, if correct,...' - again big if. You can't use as an argument something which is far from shown to be even vaguely plausible. Anyway this moral element could be a separate issue, something independent of the creation act itself and not at all associated with its functional framework.
Yes, that is what atheists tend to say. Atheists, not scientists. That was the point I was making. You wrote, "And just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true". I didn't make any claim about scientists. - "This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation."
Who says this? It's rubbish as it makes no sense.[/quote]It does make sense. In #92 I wrote
"b) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, God exists and is that explanation.
i. This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation. "
If we can agree it does make sense, then I'll supply some names.
4} If some atheists do say this then they are idiots. I would amend your b) by replacing God with "Something"; and replacing God in all your philosophical arguments with "Something". The word God only truly enters the arena when one starts dealing with religion which is its domain.
You sound like a YECer arguing against evolution
5} Good punch but I'm not down nor winded. Evolution is not a religion and is taken as a best fit for now and subject to change should further evidence show it to be not correct on some points. People do not fundamentally live, die and base their lives on it but only as a plausible explanation based on the evidence to date. For such fundamental issues as shaping ones life and principles I would need to see and have personal experience of the matters in question. As I was not there to see this Jesus fellow and all these claims about him I can only leave these details on the shelves with the rest of the history books, dipping into them for my amusement.
Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
6} A better explanation would be is that we just don't know how and why these things got to be written down (or what was altered later on). We are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility that could explain an event which we never saw. Are you saying every myth and fable or whatever is true?
Then you have misunderstood probability too. Perhaps a knowledgeable non-Christian on here would explain about probability. Me doing it would run the risk of look like it being "sophistry and playing with words." If anyone does explain it, then perhaps the following will help.
7} What I meant was that probability is a myth created from mankind's point of view. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our perspective on things that creates in our minds this probability stuff.
For this to be a good argument (that God raised Jesus from the dead), the probability of it being true needs to be higher than the probability of it not being true, i.e. >50%. On occasions people here have said that there are infinite number of possible other explanations for what is recorded in the NT (the empty tomb, etc.). That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. If the probability of those individual other explanations total less than 50%, it means that the probability of God having raised Jesus from the dead is greater than 50%. The percentages I quoted as examples, i.e. 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125% and so on were part of a sequence where, though infinitely long, only total 25%, thus showing that it is possible to have an infinite number of other possible explanations, yet still have a total of less than 50%.
8} But how does one evaluate a value for such things, who decides that this or that explanation warrants a given value of probability. It's sheer stupidity because no one can. Your example is restrictive and conditional on an idea of function and as such will naturally result in the result you say it will give. If I say to you you can go anywhere except Paul's cathedral and then declare you will never enter Paul's cathedral it is no big shakes is it...? The whole thing is fixed i.e. a sophistic game.
Would you mind restating your case on this as I am not completely sure what you are referring to.
9} Actually looking at them again there aren't any real issues worth bothering with there. They may come up later if need be but aren't worth it now.
