If God Exists is it likely that one religion has teachings closer to his true nature

[DOC]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

[Undesired Walrus]

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

I do. As the actual fate of the universe (death through ice) seems to be more accurately predicted in the Norse religion than any of our contemporary religions (Who predict it will end in fire). That seems closer to His nature.

[DOC]

I do. As the actual fate of the universe (death through ice) seems to be more accurately predicted in the Norse religion than any of our contemporary religions (Who predict it will end in fire). That seems closer to His nature.

Well Christ did say "Heaven {the heavens} and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away...

But overall then you do agree with me in that if God exists then "one" religion will be closer to the truth than the others. You just don't believe that that religion still exists.

[Twiler]

If a god exists, I see no reason why any religion should have a stronger idea of its capabilities than any other. If no-one has had contact with such an entity, then they are merely guessing. If they have, then they were not necessarily enlightened; They could have been intentionally misled, meaning that those who were making guesses had a greater chance of being correct.

While I can see the possibility that one religion might be closer than the others, either through chance, or through a truthful god, I cannot see that the proposition must be true.

[Lothian]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?Doc, I answered this more fully in the other thread. If the Christian God exists then Christianity is the most likely. If the Islamic God exists then Islam is the most likely.

If we assume a random God exists then there is no reason why any religion should describe the true nature of that God better than any other. If we look at the world today and assume there is a God we can only conclude that he is random or he does not intervene in life on earth and no religions get anywhere near his true nature.

[DOC]

Doc, I answered this more fully in the other thread. If the Christian God exists then Christianity is the most likely. If the Islamic God exists then Islam is the most likely...

(boldness added)

If the Christian God exists then Christianity is "true" (the wording "most likely" would be inappropriate).

If the Islamic God exists than Islam is "true" (the wording "most likely" would be inappropriate).

[Lothian]

(boldness added)

If the Christian God exists then Christianity is "true" (the wording most likely would be inappropriate).

If the Islamic God exists than Islam is "true" (the wording most likely would be inappropriate).Given there are different versions of Christianity and Islam and their are violent differences between them I would suggest that any single sect is not necessarily wholly preaching the truth.

[Toke]

Why do you assume a current religion?
There have been plenty others.

[DOC]

If a god exists, I see no reason why any religion should have a stronger idea of its capabilities than any other. If no-one has had contact with such an entity, then they are merely guessing...

But what if God came in the flesh (e.g. Christianity) and told certain people what his capabilities and nature and laws were -- then they wouldn't be guessing.

[Lothian]

But what if God came in the flesh (e.g. Christianity) and told certain people what his capabilities and nature and laws were -- then they wouldn't be guessing.So you are asking. If you assume that the Christian God described in the Christian bible is real which religion is most likely to be true?

[DOC]

So you are asking. If you assume that the Christian God described in the Christian bible is real which religion is most likely to be true?

No that is what you are asking, I'm asking what's in the title of the thread.

[Undesired Walrus]

Well Christ did say "Heaven {the heavens} and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away...


Yet appears to have incorrectly predicted the eventual fate of the Universe. I don't get what you mean by this.

You could go by the Hindu religion, which appears to have predicted the age of the universe far more accurately than Christianity.

[DOC]

Yet appears to have incorrectly predicted the eventual fate of the Universe.

Explain

[RossFW]

Sure, what if.

But then Islam believes that the Koran is the direct word of god written through the profit Mohamed, and that Jesus was mearly a prophet.
Have you any evidence that this is not the truth and Christianity is?

If Islam is wrong, then it is obviously a construct by deluded or self serving people, yet has a following in the billions. The same can be said for every other religion EXCEPT for the one that happens to be the truth.

Now, I bet you were just lucky enough to choose to believe (having been raised in it)the one religion (and I bet the one demonination of that religion) that happens to not be the work of mass delusion.

Lucky you....:cool:

[not daSkeptic]

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

How does one define "closer to the truth" if one does not know the truth?

[DOC]

Why do you assume a current religion?
There have been plenty others.

Any current religion or even past religions.

My contention is that if God exists "one" of them is closest to his true nature. I don't really understand why that is so hard for some people to accept. It seems a logical assertion.

[DOC]

How does one define "closer to the truth" if one does not know the truth?

If God exists his nature is what it is regardless of whether or not people have knowledge or it.

And one religion will be closer to his true nature whether or not people have exact knowledge of which one is closer. Truth is what it is, it is not dependent on people's beliefs.

[Undesired Walrus]

Explain

As I said, Christianity predicts the Universe will end in fire, the Norse predicted it will end in ice. The latter is more accurate and the former highly incorrect.

The lesson is that you can always find something in your scripture that will make it appear the closest religion there is to that of the true nature of the Universe.

[Dave Rogers]

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

I disagree with your contention as posed in the text of the post ("it is absolutely true"), as explained in the other thread. As expressed in the title of this thread ("is it likely that"), then the claim is true but trivial; it fails to pass the slood test. If I ask two people to describe slood, it is likely that one of the descriptions of slood will be closer to the real nature of slood than the other, despite the fact that neither I nor either of the people I have asked knows what slood is. This inequality does not imply that the two descriptions are in any way correlated to the actual nature of slood.

Dave

[Lothian]

No that is what you are asking, I'm asking what's in the title of the thread.No you have changed the question. The original question is one where are asked to assume that a God exists then judge the veracity of different religions.

Now you have asked us to judge the veracity of different religions assuming that the assumed god exists and also that God came in the flesh (e.g. Christianity) and told certain people what his capabilities and nature and laws were.

Perhaps you need to give us a list of the nature, properties and achievements of the assumed God before we make a judgement on the religions.

For example did this assumed God send his only son to earth to die for our sins?

[Yubi]

I must say I have a difficulty seeing the point of the question.

Assuming there is at least one god, then for some definition of "close to", either several religions are as close to the "real" version, or one of them is the closest, for whatever reason. I agree with that, but it mainly depends on what you mean by "closest to", and I don't see any consequences from this fact.

[Mashuna]

Doc, which point on a circle is closest to the centre?

If God exists his nature is what it is regardless of whether or not people have knowledge or it.

And one religion will be closer to his true nature whether or not people have exact knowledge of which one is closer. Truth is what it is, it is not dependent on people's beliefs.

So I now assume God exists, and that His nature is what it is regardless of anyone's knowledge of it.

Fine.

One religion may (not will) be closer to His true nature. Or any old made up thing may be closer to His true nature than any of the extant religions. You've got no way of knowing.

Of course, I don't hold with following any old made up thing. I follow the FSM.

[slingblade]

Any current religion or even past religions.

My contention is that if God exists "one" of them is closest to his true nature. I don't really understand why that is so hard for some people to accept. It seems a logical assertion.

It isn't hard for us to accept. It's hard for you to see the flaw in the logic, and we're trying to show you:

Yes, a god could exist.

But, it could be a god of a nature we have yet to imagine or conceive.

Therefore, none of us may have come up with a religion that comes anywhere near that god's true nature.

Your argument is posed as a non-sequitur, and so is fallacious.



I think you left a step or two out of your proposition, which is why it isn't functioning logically.

A god, extant, could have revealed itself to a person or persons on this world in some manner.

If that god does exist, then one of our religions, past or present, might reflect that god's true nature.

But to simply postulate the existence of any god, and say that it then follows any of us have or had a clue about it, is poor logic.

[Lothian]

Doc, which point on a circle is closest to the centre?


So I now assume God exists, and that His nature is what it is regardless of anyone's knowledge of it.

Fine.

One religion may (not will) be closer to His true nature. Or any old made up thing may be closer to His true nature than any of the extant religions. You've got no way of knowing.

Of course, I don't hold with following any old made up thing. I follow the FSM.But assume a pasta God Exists. Is it likely that one religion has teachings closer to his true flavour?

[Richard Masters]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

I agree, because it is a conditional statement. It is valid; but not necessarily sound.

[Mashuna]

But assume a pasta God Exists. Is it likely that one religion has teachings closer to his true flavour?

Well it's not going to be those Carbonara heretics.

[DOC]

As I said, Christianity predicts the Universe will end in fire, the Norse predicted it will end in ice. The latter is more accurate and the former highly incorrect..

Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death".

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.html

[phantomb]

If God exists his nature is what it is regardless of whether or not people have knowledge or it.

And one religion will be closer to his true nature whether or not people have exact knowledge of which one is closer. Truth is what it is, it is not dependent on people's beliefs.

If the religions are going to be getting different things right and different things wrong all over the place, how would you go about judging which one is closer? If religion 1 says that god's favorite color is red and religion 2 says that god's favorite color is green, but god's favorite color is actually blue, is one of them closer to his true nature then the other?

[DOC]

It isn't hard for us to accept. It's hard for you to see the flaw in the logic, and we're trying to show you:

Yes, a god could exist.

But, it could be a god of a nature we have yet to imagine or conceive.

Therefore, none of us may have come up with a religion that comes anywhere near that god's true nature.

Your argument is posed as a non-sequitur, and so is fallacious.

In post #1 I clarified it was an "intelligent" God we would be assuming exists.

No non-sequitur argument, and basically I just asked a question in the title of the thread.

[Lothian]

Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death".

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.htmlLooks like he is talking about the death of heat as heat is lost in an expanding empty universe. He is not talking about the universe setting itself on fire.

[Lothian]

In post #1 I clarified it was an "intelligent" God we would be assuming exists.What does intelligent mean?

[not daSkeptic]

If God exists his nature is what it is regardless of whether or not people have knowledge or it.

And one religion will be closer to his true nature whether or not people have exact knowledge of which one is closer. Truth is what it is, it is not dependent on people's beliefs.

What is to prevent two or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth?

[Mashuna]

Looks like he is talking about the death of heat as heat is lost in an expanding empty universe. He is not talking about the universe setting itself on fire.

I hope you're not implying that Doc has performed a random google search to back up his arguments, misunderstood what he read and ended up making himself look stupid.

[Undesired Walrus]

Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death".

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.html

From that link:
What's more, the Laws of Thermodynamics predict a sudden "heat death" of the universe, when all stars have died and an ever-expanding empty universe fills with expanding radiation.

Because of the death of the stars, the universe will become unbearably cold, not hot. There will be so little energy a thought may take a trillion years.

But no matter. If you came to the conclusion that the Bible wrongly predicts the eventual fate of the universe, are you saying that you would question your faith? You are demonstrating how you can take your Bible and make it say whatever you want it to say, no matter how ambiguous.

[slingblade]

In post #1 I clarified it was an "intelligent" God we would be assuming exists.

That doesn't really add anything to the premise.

No non-sequitur argument, and basically I just asked a question in the title of the thread.

Uh, yeah, I know you just asked a question.

It IS a non-sequitur. Your proposed conclusion does not follow from your premise, simple as that.


DOC, what if there is a god, and her name is Sharon. And Sharon is fat, red-headed, and likes truffles. She doesn't want to be worshiped, she has no hell or heaven to send people to, she can't even hear prayers, and she doesn't know we exist.

Which of our religions comes closest to Sharon's true nature?

[Zep]

Well, MY god is going to be the closest to his "true Nature" My god teaches that science will tell us all the answers through careful facts and research.

I win.

[wollery]

Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death".

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.htmlOh dear. :nope:

DOC, one of these days you really should try reading your sources, and checking your assumptions before posting. It would help you to avoid these embarrassing situations.

The "heat death of the Universe" refers to the average temperature of the Universe approaching absolute zero, as the stars run out of fusionable matter, and all that's left is cold lumps of gas and dust, and a little radiation floating around in an ever expanding Universe. It doesn't heat up, it cools down.

[DOC]

What is to prevent two or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth?

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.

[bokonon]

My contention is that if God exists "one" of them is closest to his true nature. I don't really understand why that is so hard for some people to accept. It seems a logical assertion.
It isn't a logical assertion.

If god is a can of corn, and one religion says he's a toaster, another religion says he's a waffle iron, a third insists he's a blow dryer, a fourth claims he's 4:15 on the afternoon of December 23rd, a fifth says he's the color purple, etc., which one is "closer" to his true nature?

The Christian God, in virtually all versions, is a logical impossibility given the world as we observe it. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence just can't be reconciled with widespread suffering.

[Dave Rogers]

The "heat death of the Universe" refers to the average temperature of the Universe approaching absolute zero, as the stars run out of fusionable matter, and all that's left is cold lumps of gas and dust, and a little radiation floating around in an ever expanding Universe. It doesn't heat up, it cools down.

What may have confused DOC is the use of the word "sudden" in the article. It appears that this was put there, quite inappropriately, by the writer of the article, rather than being a quote from Guy Consolmagno. Indeed, Consolmagno himself is not predicting anything, as he gives two extreme possibilities for the end of the universe and doesn't even bother to justify either. So this isn't simply DOC misunderstanding a source, it's DOC misinterpreting a scientific journalist's misunderstanding of a source. As an appeal to authority filtered through two levels of misunderstanding, it's remarkable that it gives the appearance of containing any information at all.

Dave

[bokonon]

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.
So, as usual, you're just begging the question. "If what I want to believe is true, then it's more likely to be the truth."

The problem is, there's no reason to think what you want to believe is true.

[DOC]

That doesn't really add anything to the premise.



Uh, yeah, I know you just asked a question.

It IS a non-sequitur. Your proposed conclusion does not follow from your premise, simple as that.

Be specific what do you believe is my premise and my proposed conclusion so I can answer your post.

[bokonon]

Well, MY god is going to be the closest to his "true Nature" My god teaches that science will tell us all the answers through careful facts and research.

I win.
I agree with you. If there is a god which created the universe, then science is the most likely path to understanding its true nature.

[zooterkin]

As an appeal to authority filtered through two levels of misunderstanding, it's remarkable that it gives the appearance of containing any information at all.

Dave

Nice summary of DOC's posting style...

[DOC]

DOC, what if there is a god, and her name is Sharon. And Sharon is fat, red-headed, and likes truffles. She doesn't want to be worshiped, she has no hell or heaven to send people to, she can't even hear prayers, and she doesn't know we exist.

Which of our religions comes closest to Sharon's true nature?

I don't know, but I believe one religion would be closest to the truth of God Sharon. Maybe Deism or witchcraft would be the closest.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Someone may have already said this, but it's possible that all religions are so far off the mark that measuring the distance to the real god is a hopeless task.

~~ Paul

[Dave Rogers]

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.

That's a circular argument. From the premise that there is a religion that's closest to God, it concludes that no two religions can be equidistant to the truth. Even the conclusion is false, in that it is only valid to conclude that no other religion can be equally close as that which is assumed in the premise to be the closest; no conclusion can be formed as to the difference between other religions and the truth.

Dave

[DOC]

Oh dear. :nope:

DOC, one of these days you really should try reading your sources, and checking your assumptions before posting. It would help you to avoid these embarrassing situations.

The "heat death of the Universe" refers to the average temperature of the Universe approaching absolute zero, as the stars run out of fusionable matter, and all that's left is cold lumps of gas and dust, and a little radiation floating around in an ever expanding Universe. It doesn't heat up, it cools down.

Well all this is unrelated to the topic, but are you saying an all powerful God who created the universe couldn't just burn up the whole thing if and when he chose to regardless of what science theorizes what might happen.

[GStan]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

Yes, if you assume that there is a god, then one of the many, many attempts that humans have made to describe his nature will have come closer to getting it right than all of the others. However, debating this is a little like playing darts under the following conditions: You're blindfolded, you've never seen a dart, you've never seen a dart board and you don't know in which direction the dartboard is located, or how far away it is. Throw a bunch of darts in a bunch of different directions with varying degrees of force. There is going to be one dart that is closer to the bullseye than the rest.

But what is the point of even asking this question? Are you after a general agreement that one is closer, as a prelude to the question, "which one is closer?" Because that is a debate that you can't have. You can't measure which one is closer because you can't take off the blindfold, you have no useful measuring tool, and you still don't know what a dartboard looks like, or where it is.

I suppose this is just a different way of stating Dave's "slood" analogy.

My $0.02.

[Lothian]

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.If God was Bokonon’s can of corn the fact that one religion had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me" would not prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.

A religion’s claims to be the “one true faith” in no way makes it a more accurate religion.

[Lothian]

DOC, what if there is a god, and her name is Sharon. And Sharon is fat, red-headed, and likes truffles. She doesn't want to be worshiped, she has no hell or heaven to send people to, she can't even hear prayers, and she doesn't know we exist.

Which of our religions comes closest to Sharon's true nature?I think you will find that the "Truffles" are actually meatballs.

[DOC]

That's a circular argument. From the premise that there is a religion that's closest to God, it concludes that no two religions can be equidistant to the truth. Even the conclusion is false, in that it is only valid to conclude that no other religion can be equally close as that which is assumed in the premise to be the closest; no conclusion can be formed as to the difference between other religions and the truth.

What if a religion was 100% correct. For example if Christianity (or one particular sect of Christianity) was 100% correct then we know no other religion could be 100% correct (or equidistant) because there is no other religion that is exactly the same as Christianity. There is no other religion I know of that claims:

its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes, if you assume that there is a god, then one of the many, many attempts that humans have made to describe his nature will have come closer to getting it right than all of the others. However, debating this is a little like playing darts under the following conditions: You're blindfolded, you've never seen a dart, you've never seen a dart board and you don't know in which direction the dartboard is located, or how far away it is. Throw a bunch of darts in a bunch of different directions with varying degrees of force. There is going to be one dart that is closer to the bullseye than the rest.

But what is the point of even asking this question?


Possibly to twist the suggestion that one would be closest to the dartboard IF it exists into an admission THAT it exists?

[Dave Rogers]

Well all this is unrelated to the topic, but are you saying an all powerful God who created the universe couldn't just burn up the whole thing if and when he chose to regardless of what science theorizes what might happen.

What an absurd strawman. Your claim was that science predicts a sudden end to the Universe due to heating. That claim was incorrect, as pointed out. If an omnipotent God chose to end the Universe by suddenly burning it up, then his ability to do so would be rather implicit in the definition of the word "omnipotent". That doesn't affect the fact that your claim was wrong.


What if a religion was 100% correct. For example if Christianity (or one particular sect of Christianity) was 100% correct then we know no other religion could be 100% correct (or equidistant) because there is no other religion that is exactly the same as Christianity.

Again, this is a trivial argument. If one religion is 100% correct and states that no other religion is 100% correct, then no other religion is equally correct. However, if we do not accept the premise that one religion is 100% correct, then it is possible for any two or more religions to be equal first in the correctness of their description of God.

Now let's examine the premise that Christianity might be 100% correct in its description of God. I contend that this premise is flawed, because a part of the description of the Christian God is that he is ineffable; in other words, no description of him can be 100% correct. Therefore, it is an inescapable corollary of Christianity that Christianity does not have a 100% correct description of God. Therefore, we can exclude the possibility that Christianity is the only religion to present a 100% correct understanding of God (although this is only true of religions which specify ineffability as a part of the nature of God, so other religions cannot necessarily be excluded on this basis).

Therefore, you have attempted to construct a circular argument, and succeeded in constructing a self-contradictory one. Your premise is still unproven.

Dave

[Lothian]

What if a religion was 100% correct. For example if Christianity (or one particular sect of Christianity) was 100% correct then we know no other religion could be 100% correct (or equidistant) because there is no other religion that is exactly the same as Christianity. There is no other religion I know of that claims:

its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.Christianity is not even the same as Christianity, but if a religion is 100% correct any differing religions would be less accurate.

What does this have to do with the O.P. which was asking which religion is closest to describing an imaginary God.

Unless you are doing what I suggested which is asking which religion is the most accurate in describing the God detailed in Christianity’s holy texts.

[slingblade]

I don't know, but I believe one religion would be closest to the truth of God Sharon. Maybe Deism or witchcraft would be the closest.

Ok, thanks for the answer. I do appreciate it, and to an extent, it does make sense.

But what if a god does exist, but it is one which is completely outside our ability to comprehend? None of our religions could have teachings closer to his true nature, because we cannot comprehend this god.

This is the flaw I'm trying to point out in the question. "How likely" depends on the true nature of god. If we've missed it completely, then the answer is "not at all likely."

No one could tell you how likely it is until one has some basis for comparison, which no one has.

[bokonon]

Well all this is unrelated to the topic, but are you saying an all powerful God who created the universe couldn't just burn up the whole thing if and when he chose to regardless of what science theorizes what might happen.
Are you saying an all powerful God who created the universe couldn't just let anybody he wanted come to him if and when he chose to regardless of what Jesus said about being the heavenly doorman?

[RoboTimbo]

What if a religion was 100% correct. For example if Christianity (or one particular sect of Christianity) was 100% correct then we know no other religion could be 100% correct (or equidistant) because there is no other religion that is exactly the same as Christianity. There is no other religion I know of that claims:

its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.


Which sect of Pasta do you believe to be the closest to the true understanding of the FSM? If one sect says that the true way for salvation is through Cream Sauce, and another says it must be Tomato Based, and a third says have no other before me but Olive Oil, which is closer to the truth?

I, for one, welcome our Alfredo overlord. Tomato Sauce gives me heartburn.

[joobz]

What if a religion was 100% correct. For example if Christianity (or one particular sect of Christianity) was 100% correct then we know no other religion could be 100% correct (or equidistant) because there is no other religion that is exactly the same as Christianity. There is no other religion I know of that claims:

its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.
And if christianity is true, then slavery would not be amoral as Jesus did not argue against slavery.

DOC,

Do you beleive that partially correct is correct enough when it comes to religion?

Let's take your set of premises:
its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.
its founder died for our sins,
that you should love your enemy,
its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.

Let's say that these are true, but in fact it wasn't Jesus who was the god in the flesh but a Woman named Janet who lived in Austrialia in the 1950s.

would you claim that christianity at least was "closest" and would it matter? Do you think Janet would say, "Well you got some parts of the story right, so I'll let it slide...."

religion is either right or wrong, close doesn't count. So to answer your question, No. It isn't logical to think that 1 religion is closest to the truth than others.

[Upchurch]

Little late to the party, but if a god or gods exist, then it is entirely possible that multiple religions get it right in different ways.

What's closer to white light? Red or green?

[/Unitarian Universalist]

[joobz]

Little late to the party, but if a god or gods exist, then it is entirely possible that multiple religions get it right in different ways.

What's closer to white light? Red or green?

[/Unitarian Universalist]
That's funny, we had the perfectly complimentary argument.

[Undesired Walrus]

Well all this is unrelated to the topic, but are you saying an all powerful God who created the universe couldn't just burn up the whole thing if and when he chose to regardless of what science theorizes what might happen.

The problem here is that you stand up for science when it supports your views, but you are willing to dismiss it when it does not. Which is it DOC? It is a demonstration that you have designed your God -so devoid of evidence- to be utterly incapable of logical destruction. Whatever avenue the truth walks down, you can modify your God to be right at its side.

Personally, I don't see how a Christian God is compatible with a reality in which Humans are edible.

[Twiler]

But what if God came in the flesh (e.g. Christianity) and told certain people what his capabilities and nature and laws were -- then they wouldn't be guessing.

I have, in fact, answered this possibility in the rest of the post I made.

[Lothian]

Doc, as a relevant aside. The title of this thread presupposes that God is male. If God exisits, is there any reason to suppose he is male?

[Lothian]

Personally, I don't see how a Christian God is compatible with a reality in which Humans are edible.Doesn't the Christian God* demand his worshipers eat his flesh in the communion rite?




*Well some Christian sects claim that the nature of god is such that he wants to be eaten by his flock. What do you think Doc? Are the cannibals nearer to knowing the nature of God than those who consider it symbolic?

[kedo1981]

DOC said “There is no other religion I know of that claims:

its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

Its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.”




You just show how profoundly ignorant you are of the history of your own myths.
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity that was Paul of Tarsus.
The ancient world was full of religions that made the same claims.
The church just did a good job of absorbing them.

And no, it does not stand to reason that one religion would have any better of a chance of being closer to the truth than any other.

Let’s just assume like you want us to there is a god that is the all powerful creator of the universe.
There are only two religions in the whole universe

Religion 1:
God is Blue
Male
Wants you eat carrots
Will help you win ball games

Religion 2:
God is Green
Male
Wants you eat carrots
Will help you win ball games

It turns out God is a shade of turquoise, is religion 1 more the truth?

[Soapy Sam]

Likely? Yes.

As in Alpha Centauri (a) exists.
If I close my eyes and point in two random directions, it is likely one is closer to the direction to Alpha Centauri (a) than the other. It's also likely neither will be remotely close.
We are postulating a thing that makes universes. What do we know of such things?

[Undesired Walrus]

Doesn't the Christian God* demand his worshipers eat his flesh in the communion rite?




*Well some Christian sects claim that the nature of god is such that he wants to be eaten by his flock. What do you think Doc? Are the cannibals nearer to knowing the nature of God than those who consider it symbolic?

Well, at least make Humans only edible to Humanity!

[Upchurch]

That's funny, we had the perfectly complimentary argument.Well, the important thing is that it does not necessarily follow that of multiple complex religious systems, one will be the closest to the truth.

In fact, given the way that religions change, any older religion is only likely to have only a passing resemblance to it's original version, let alone with the god(s) assumed in the OP. But that's another topic.

[FireGarden]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

This is actually a good question.
Suppose I pick a number at random, and two people guess my number. What are the odds that their guesses are equidistant from the number I chose?

That's quite complex -- even limiting the choices to integers between 1 and 10 and assuming the choices are all equally likely.

Heck, let's make it easier.

Choice of numbers: 1..1
Odds that guesses are equidistant = 1

Choice of numbers: 1..2
I choose -- Guess A -- Guess B
1 -- 1 -- 1 --- equidistant
1 -- 1 -- 2
1 -- 2 -- 1
1 -- 2 -- 2 --- equidistant

2 -- 1 -- 1 --- equidistant
2 -- 1 -- 2
2 -- 2 -- 1
2 -- 2 -- 2 --- equidistant

So odds both guesses are equally close is 50-50


Choice of numbers: 1..3
I choose -- Guess A -- Guess B
1 -- 1 -- 1 --- equidistant
1 -- 1 -- 2
1 -- 1 -- 3
1 -- 2 -- 1
1 -- 2 -- 2 --- equidistant
1 -- 2 -- 3
1 -- 3 -- 1
1 -- 3 -- 2
1 -- 3 -- 3 --- equidistant

2 -- 1 -- 1 --- equidistant
2 -- 1 -- 2
2 -- 1 -- 3 --- equidistant
2 -- 2 -- 1
2 -- 2 -- 2 --- equidistant
2 -- 2 -- 3
2 -- 3 -- 1 --- equidistant
2 -- 3 -- 2
2 -- 3 -- 3 --- equidistant

3 -- 1 -- 1 --- equidistant
3 -- 1 -- 2
3 -- 1 -- 3
3 -- 2 -- 1
3 -- 2 -- 2 --- equidistant
3 -- 2 -- 3
3 -- 3 -- 1
3 -- 3 -- 2
3 -- 3 -- 3 --- equidistant


So the odds of equidistant guesses is 11/27

Choice of numbers: 1..4
I choose -- equidistant choice pairs
1 -- (1,1) (2,2) (3,3) (4,4) = 4 pairs

2 -- (1,1) (1,3) (2,2) (3,3) (3,1) (4,4) = 6 pairs

3 -- (1,1) (2,2) (2,4) (3,3) (4,4) (4,3) = 6 pairs

4 -- (1,1) (2,2) (3,3) (4,4) =4 pairs

P(guesses are euqidistant) = 20/64 = 5/16



Choice of numbers: 1..10
I choose -- Number of equidistant choice pairs
1 -- 10

2 -- (10+2)

3 -- (10+2+2)

4 -- (10+2+2+2)

5 -- (10+2+2+2+2)

etc

P(equidistant guesses)
=(10+12+14+16+18+18+16+14+12+10)/1000
=14/100

Sorry, I've been distracted from the religious significance of all this.... But the guesses are likely to be at different distances. Now what if there were 3 guesses....

[FireGarden]

I suppose this is just a different way of stating Dave's "slood" analogy.

My $0.02.

It's Slood all the way down!

[LarianLeQuella]

If there was a god, and he's so perfect, you'd think he could do a better job on his instruction manual? ;)

[JCL]

Doc,

Is this what you are getting at?

Assume everything Doc thinks about religion is correct.
Does it logically follow that Doc knows the correct religion?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If there was a god, and he's so perfect, you'd think he could do a better job on his instruction manual? ;)

We are supposed to convinced of the truth of Christianity by reading 1800 year-old stories about JC and his amazing abilities when he could not even convince the people of the time to whom he actually demonstrated them. An actual feeding of the multitudes with a couple of minnows and stale buns would make a believer out of me. A story about it is no more convincing than one about Paul Bunyon digging the Grand Canyon. And at least I have visited Nevada.

[Hokulele]

Doc, as a relevant aside. The title of this thread presupposes that God is male. If God exists, is there any reason to suppose he is male?


And why assume that there is only one god? Amaterasu is my home girl.

[neltana]

If God exists his nature is what it is regardless of whether or not people have knowledge or it.

And one religion will be closer to his true nature whether or not people have exact knowledge of which one is closer. Truth is what it is, it is not dependent on people's beliefs.

This isn't true at all. You assume somebody is in the right ballpark, and they may not be.

Let's posit a God that has an unknown set of characteristics. It is possible that no human religion has or even can conceive of any of these same characteristics. Thus, all MAY be equally wrong.

So, for instance, religion A says that god has the following characteristics {tall, salty, loud}. Religion B says that god is {short, sour, quiet}. If, in reality, god's true characteristics are {purple, smelly}, neither one is more correct.

[jmcvann]

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.

Only if you assume (and you do) that the religion you cite is correct. If it is wrong, then two other religions could be equidistant to the truth.

[Vic Vega]

A story about it is no more convincing than one about Paul Bunyon digging the Grand Canyon. And at least I have visited Nevada.

Though you didn't see the Grand Canyon there. It's in Arizona.

:D

[Hokulele]

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.


And that founder could have been lying, mistaken, or completely deluded. I am sure there are other options as well.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Though you didn't see the Grand Canyon there. It's in Arizona.

:D

Exactly!

(Gord pretending he did not make a mistake and was making some sort of obtuse point. :o)

[Jono]

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

What if we assume an omnipotent and omnipresent God, one who is truly so, one who is not only everywhere at the same time but is everything at the same time, every thought, everything, every concept equally, every spark of consciousness or movement or vibration, everything equally as much. If so, then any idea, which is in turn part of "everything", would be equally as much God, wether the idea is to say "God is this" or "God is that" or "God isn't this or that".

[volatile]

There is no other religion I know of that claims:

its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.

So? In what way are these arbitrary metrics to be taken as evidence of one particular religion's veractiy?

I suggest you look up "circular argument" again... I cannot believe you've been on these forums so long and yet still can't hold a straight thought in your head.

[LarianLeQuella]

Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death".

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.html


That article indicates that Gugliamo (or whatever his name is) said "it's all a paradox"... Besides, the "Heat death" he's talking about is actually a death OF heat... So, we're back to the Norse.


its founder is the God in the flesh, and part of a Trinity.

its founder died for our sins,

that you should love your enemy,

its founder says there is "no other way" to come to God but through him.

You know, all of those elements are stolen from many other religions. Xtianity has no exclusive domain to those claims, and only can take credit for mashing them all together in their own mythos...

[calebprime]

Since everything else here is already covered, I just want to point out that Christian apologetics seems fond of this strategy:

1) Attack atheism, force the theist "fork".

2) Once theism is accepted, claim Christianity is the best of the world's theistic religions.

3) Along the way, pay a little lip service to Buddhism before condemning it as nihilistic, only interested in extinction.

I think most religious arguments pretend to be about metaphysics, when they are really about this world.

For instance, I'm thinking of Radrook's remark that the one thing God truly condemns is disbelief. No, a religious community cannot tolerate disbelief, because it destroys solidarity.

A projection of human feelings into the sky.


My pasta's almost ready. I'm a 9-10 minute pastafarian--only this faith gives me big strands to sink my teeth into.

Linguini is the devil's work.

Red sauce is the devil's work.

This isn't my opinion. It is written.

[joobz]

And why assume that there is only one god? Amaterasu is my home girl.

Ha!
a female god? Get serious. It's clear that all women are incapable of handling the power and wisdom of being a god. ;)

[zooterkin]

Which sect of Pasta do you believe to be the closest to the true understanding of the FSM? If one sect says that the true way for salvation is through Cream Sauce, and another says it must be Tomato Based, and a third says have no other before me but Olive Oil, which is closer to the truth?

I, for one, welcome our Alfredo overlord. Tomato Sauce gives me heartburn.

Well, Olive Oil is clearly closer, but it must be mixed with (green) pesto.

[volatile]

Well, Olive Oil is clearly closer, but it must be mixed with (green) pesto.

You'd better mean to have said "RED pesto, no parmesan", heretic!

[paximperium]

Since everything else here is already covered, I just want to point out that Christian apologetics seem fond of this strategy:

1) Attack atheism, force the theist "fork".

2) Once theism is accepted, claim Christianity is the best of the world's theistic religions.

3) Along the way, pay a little lip service to Buddhism before condemning it as nihilistic, only interested in extinction.

I think most religious arguments pretend to be about metaphysics, when they are really about this world.

This is DOC's attempt to change the subject.

Since his attempt at "Evidence that the New Testament Writers told the Truth" was such an utter disaster, he is actually trying to skip that step entirely and go straight to "my religion is the right one, be a Christian".

The questions is a leading question and a non-sequitur. He is attempting to lead others to assume that YHWH/Jesus/Sky-daddy is that god and that Christianity is the "closest to the his true nature" without bothering to establish if:
1)A god even exist
2)If anything in the Bible is true
3)Anything believed by Christians is true

[Drudgewire]

Doc, I answered this more fully in the other thread. If the Christian God exists then Christianity is the most likely. If the Islamic God exists then Islam is the most likely.

I forget the exact quote, but somewhere Jesus makes the comment to not fear for those who are unable to recieve his message because they're already accounted for.

While some christians prefer to take that to mean their souls were doomed until the word was finally spread worldwide, to me it's a way of saying "they have their own religion and are getting the message they're supposed to get that way."

I'm sort of a hippie about religion. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

[Silentknight]

If God existed then humans would still be fallible, superstitious, frequently irrational, and sometimes violent animals. Given that religions derive from culture and cultural values are relative, then it's likely that no religion has even come close to God's true nature, because they're all too busy fighting each other over idiotic reasons.

[bokonon]

You'd better mean to have said "RED pesto, no parmesan", heretic!
I've never heard of red pesto. Is it too early to move on to the "exchanging recipes" segment of the thread?

[Toke]

This is DOC's attempt to change the subject.

Since his attempt at "Evidence that the New Testament Writers told the Truth" was such an utter disaster, he is actually trying to skip that step entirely and go straight to "my religion is the right one, be a Christian".
(Snip)

This tread does not look too succesfull either.
But quite entertaining

[volatile]

I've never heard of red pesto. Is it too early to move on to the "exchanging recipes" segment of the thread?

http://recipes.epicurean.com/recipe/3334/red-pesto-sauce.html

Made with sun-dried tomatoes! Yummy!

[bokonon]

Yeah, looks like the green with sun-dried tomatoes added. I'll give it a try one of these days. Thanks!

[GeeMack]

What if a religion was 100% correct. For example if Christianity (or one particular sect of Christianity) was 100% correct then we know no other religion could be 100% correct (or equidistant) because there is no other religion that is exactly the same as Christianity.


There are no two people who participate in the same sect of any religion who agree 100% on what the truth of their religion is. So no sect can be 100% correct. So you're just as wrong with this desperate attempt to describe your premise as you have been with all the others. Dig it, DOC, you're wrong again! :)

But it does bring up another interesting hypothetical consideration. Since DOC is wrong at least once in virtually every thread where he tries to support the truth of his religion, does that make it less likely that his religion is true?

[DOC]

Well all this is unrelated to the topic, but are you saying an all powerful God who created the universe couldn't just burn up the whole thing if and when he chose to regardless of what science theorizes what might happen.


What an absurd strawman. Your claim was that science predicts a sudden end to the Universe due to heating. That claim was incorrect, as pointed out. If an omnipotent God chose to end the Universe by suddenly burning it up, then his ability to do so would be rather implicit in the definition of the word "omnipotent". That doesn't affect the fact that your claim was wrong.

It wasn't my claim. This is what I said:

"Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death"."

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.html

And you will notice he also says

"It is hard to say precisely what the universe's end will look like, he added, but "either it will end with a bang, or it'll end with a whimper."

And whether I knew what the term heat death means is irrelevant to this thread. And you basically minimized my more important point that an omnipotent God could burn up the universe regardless of what any scientific "theory" (that may or may not be accurate) says and concentrated mainly on the irrelevant aspect of my not knowing what the term heat death meant.

But that is par for the course in my threads. Any opportunity at all to attack me personally is jumped on and given priority over any other point, even those of more importance.

[Toke]

Probability does not go below 0

[DOC]

Again, this is a trivial argument. If one religion is 100% correct and states that no other religion is 100% correct, then no other religion is equally correct. However, if we do not accept the premise that one religion is 100% correct, then it is possible for any two or more religions to be equal first in the correctness of their description of God.

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.

[Toke]

DOC.

Please rate major religions accuracy on the assumption that god is a lesbian*.
1-10 ratings will do.

*for ease of example we start with just one caractheristic.

[sackett]

If John Frum exists, what religion is the truthiest?

Funny thing, a guy claiming to be John Frum was active in the New Hebrides back around 1935. That's no mythically-distant past; there could be people living today who remember him. ('Scuse me, Him.) That's way more DOC-style evidence for the truth of Cargo (at least as practiced today on Tanna) than anything supporting Christianism.

Edited to add a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

I'm laying 8 to 5 that WhatzupDoc doesn't go there to read about Frumism. I'm laying 1000 to 1 that even if he reads the whole thing it won't make him the tiniest bit uncomfortable.

[not daSkeptic]

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.

How do you know that said differences are relevant to the question of who is closest to the truth?

[Rasmus]

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.

How on earth do you measure the correctness of a religion and derive at a single, simple value that can easily be compared to that of other religions?

Even if there was one (and only one) god, and you could compare that god and its whishes, commands, etc. to the scriptures of a given religion: How would you evaluate this?

I used to have a car. If I asked two or more forumites to guess what my car was and describe it, I would end up with many different descriptions. They would overlap, for sure - the number of wheels will most likely be 4 with some exceptions for 3 or 6, I suppose. Some smartass might even suggest 2 wheels and still describe an actual car, too. The descriptions will guess as to the number of doors of my car with similar answers. The descriptions will contradict each other in certain asepcts, whilst some will point out details that other descriptions omit entirely. Parts of some descriptions will be more precide or detailed than others.

If I then told you what my car was (or possibly even bought it back and gave it to you) how would you decide which description was the most accurate?

My car was red. Now, a description calling my car "blue" would be wrong. But which is more correct? One that said "red" or one that happened to get the precise shade right? (crimson, I think?) Would "venetian red" be more right than "blue"? Would "red" be more right than "venetian red"? And would "crimson" be more right than "red"?

Now compare two descriptions and assume that one got the colour wrong (it says "blue") and the other says my car had 5 doors rather than the three it really had. Which description would you say is more accurate, and why?

And then we have the additional problem that not everything that is part of a religion actually has anything to do with the nature of god as such.

I got a little money for the car - should that be part of the description of the car itself? What about the spot where I parked it or the songs I'd play on the stereo?

[Darth Rotor]

*Well some Christian sects claim that the nature of god is such that he wants to be eaten by his flock. What do you think Doc? Are the cannibals nearer to knowing the nature of God than those who consider it symbolic?

1. cannibals eat missionaries, not gods

2. Your post evokes a humorous albeit fanciful conversation between a worshipper and God:

W: God, you are wonderful, please grant me this boon.
G: Eat me.

That can be taken a lot of ways.

DR

[bruto]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?

I'm going to jump to the end before reading the whole thread (pressed for time and not at home), and make the following observations. Even if the assertion is true it is likely to be either meaningless or indeterminable.

The contention will be true if, and only if, one religion has yet been invented that is remotely accurate. While there is a chance that this has occurred, there is also a substantial chance that all religions hitherto invented are so far from the truth that "closer to the truth" is as meaningless as saying that a caboose is more like a christmas tree than a glockenspiel is.

If, by chance, a religion has been invented that comes closer than that, the assertion would be true, but would remain useless and unconfirmable, since there appears to be no known way to test which religion is the winner. Believing it true would gain you nothing that faith and guesswork have not already gotten you.

[Upchurch]

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.
They aren't that different. In fact, both Mormonism and Islam consider themselves to be extensions of Christianity just as Christianity considers itself to be an extension of Judaism.

Besides, as I said, if they each have aspects that are correct they could be equally correct in different ways.

[wollery]

It wasn't my claim. This is what I said:

"Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death"."

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.htmlGiven that you said that in response to someone else saying that Universe would end up cold, then we can only surmise that that is exactly what you meant. You were wrong. Pretending it isn't what you meant just makes you look ridiculous. Admit you were wrong, it isn't that difficult.

And you will notice he also says

"It is hard to say precisely what the universe's end will look like, he added, but "either it will end with a bang, or it'll end with a whimper."Those two possibilities refer to the four possible ends for the Universe, based on how much mass it contains and whether or not it the expansion is accelerating.

If the expansion isn't accelerating, and the Universe contains enough mass to overcome the expansion rate then it will collapse back on itself and end in a Big Crunch, sort of like a Big Bang in reverse. That's the "Bang" he's referring to.

If it has just the right amount of mass then it will keep expanding, but the rate of expansion will slow exponentially and eventually stop at an infinite time in the future. If there is too little mass then the expansion will continue forever, and never get near to stopping. That's the "Whimper" he's referring to.

The fourth option is if the expansion is accelerating then the Universe will eventually tear itself apart. This might also be referred to as a "Bang".

And whether I knew what the term heat death means is irrelevant to this thread. And you basically minimized my more important point that an omnipotent God could burn up the universe regardless of what any scientific "theory" (that may or may not be accurate) says and concentrated mainly on the irrelevant aspect of my not knowing what the term heat death meant. You introduced it as some sort of evidence. If you want to discuss anything in a skeptics forum you'd better be prepared to have your evidence questioned, and your mistakes pointed out.

But that is par for the course in my threads. Any opportunity at all to attack me personally is jumped on and given priority over any other point, even those of more importance.I didn't attack you, I attacked your research methods and knowledge of science, which have been shown time after time to be woeful.

[Upchurch]

And you basically minimized my more important point that an omnipotent God could burn up the universe regardless of what any scientific "theory" (that may or may not be accurate) says and concentrated mainly on the irrelevant aspect of my not knowing what the term heat death meant.
I don't mean this as an attack, but as an earnest question: Why bother appealing to logic or reason (as you do in the OP) at all if you allow a magical creature to change the rules?

If an omnipotent God could do any thing at any time, then the OP question is meaningless. Such a God could change its own nature at any time to fit any of the religions. Or all of them. Or none of them.

Christianity is only as "true" (whatever that word would mean with such a being) as an omnipotent God chooses for it to be at the moment.

[arthwollipot]

Yes, I posed this question in my thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" which is located in the History, Literature Forum section. One person implied it was off topic, one person said I was playing a guessing game, one person changed the premise of the question and said I need to prove the existence of God. So I thought I'd bring the question in here. It is probably more related to religion than history anyway.

I contend that if you assume an intelligent God exists (for argument sake) then it is absolutely true that the teachings of "one" religion, that exists now, (whether it be Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc.) will be closer to the truth about the "true" nature of God than the other religions. Does anyone disagree with my contention and why?I actually think that this is a very reasonable question (yes, I know, it surprised the heck out of me too).

If one God does truly exist, then yes, I think that there would be one religion that is absolutely true. I also think that there would be no other religions because there would be no doubt about this God's existence or teachings.

The plethora of possible religions that exists in the world today or in the past is, to me, strong circumstantial evidence that there are no gods. If one or more gods exist, then surely we would know it without question?

I think it's far more likely that all religions are equally wrong. My opinion only, of course.

[bokonon]

If God Exists is it likely that one religion has teachings closer to his true nature?
I wouldn't say it's likely, but my money would be on the Hindus, since they don't put all their eggs in one basket. If you're playing the "Nail the Diety" lottery, it only stands to reason that buying a few dozen tickets gives you a better chance of winning than buying only one.

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't say it's likely, but my money would be on the Hindus, since they don't put all their eggs in one basket. If you're playing the "Nail the Diety" lottery, it only stands to reason that buying a few dozen tickets gives you a better chance of winning than buying only one.


For loose definitions of god, I will go with the animists with their "everything has its own god". Shinto is a good example of this (hence my previous reference to Amaterasu).

[bokonon]

Now you're just making up words.

[Hokulele]

Now you're just making up words.


As opposed to making up gods?

[Foster Zygote]

If dragons exist, is it likely that one cultural tradition/fantasy author depicts them closer to their true nature?

If vampires exist, is it likely that one novel/film depicts them more accurately than the others?

If time travel technology exists, is it more like that depicted in Terminator, Time Cop, or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?

[Mashuna]

It wasn't my claim. This is what I said:

"Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death"."

http://www.physorg.com/news10311.html

And you will notice he also says

"It is hard to say precisely what the universe's end will look like, he added, but "either it will end with a bang, or it'll end with a whimper."

And whether I knew what the term heat death means is irrelevant to this thread. And you basically minimized my more important point that an omnipotent God could burn up the universe regardless of what any scientific "theory" (that may or may not be accurate) says and concentrated mainly on the irrelevant aspect of my not knowing what the term heat death meant.



So why did you even bother to invoke (and misunderstand) science, if you're then immediately going to retreat into "Well God can do anything anyway"? If you're going to take that route, the universe could end in custard.

It's also worth noting that your "more important point" was one you hastily added after people pointed out your original error. Funny how you forgot to make that point until then, eh?

[Lothian]

So why did you even bother to invoke (and misunderstand) science, if you're then immediately going to retreat into "Well God can do anything anyway"? If you're going to take that route, the universe could end in custard.

It's also worth noting that your "more important point" was one you hastily added after people pointed out your original error. Funny how you forgot to make that point until then, eh?Actually I find it amusing. Doc implies Christianity is the nearest faith to knowing God then demonstrates that Christianity covers all extremes and everything in between.

[Dave Rogers]

DOC, I'm just going to quote two parts of your post, to demonstrate a point.

This is what I said:

"Not according to this Vatican astronomer. He says "science" predicts it will end in a sudden "heat death"."

And you basically minimized my more important point that an omnipotent God could burn up the universe regardless of what any scientific "theory" (that may or may not be accurate) says and concentrated mainly on the irrelevant aspect of my not knowing what the term heat death meant.

You're stating your original claim, then in the same post misrepresenting this claim. Your "more important point" was made in a later post, after your original claim had been disputed, as a rebuttal. If you're prepared to lie this brazenly, you won't be taken as a very good ambassador for a religion that prohibits lying. And please note, when you lie about what you said in a forum thread, anyone can go back over your posting history and see that you're lying. You've denied yourself the possibility of a defence.

And, also, I see that you have chosen to continue a piece of off-topic bickering, rather than address the implications of my assertion that, due to the doctrine of ineffability, it is impossible for Christianity to have a 100% correct conception of God. Would you please address an issue that is central to your argument, rather than try to cover up your largely irrelevant mistakes?

Dave

[FireGarden]

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.

An exam has a set of correct answers.
Two people who sit the exam will provide a subset of those correct answers, along (possibly) with some incorrect answers.

Most exams have a system of marking which allows us to quantify how close to correct a particular set of answers are.

Two people can get the same mark while providing different answers. ie: they can both be equally close to a target while disagreeing with each other on some details.

[FireGarden]

The fourth option is if the expansion is accelerating then the Universe will eventually tear itself apart. This might also be referred to as a "Bang".

I think there might still be room for doubt over this. But I am going by wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a rapid collapse.

I don't know how big that possibility is.

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.

How do you know that said differences are relevant to the question of who is closest to the truth?

Because they are contradictory and they can't both be true. I realize that there are people out there who believe all religions lead to God and are basically equal.

Here is what Norman Geisler says on page 45 of his book "I don't have enough faith to be and atheist" which we talk about in depth in my other thread in the history, literature section.

"In fact, world religions have more contradictory beliefs than complementary ones. The notion that all religions teach basically the same thing --that we ought to love one another -- demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of world religions. While most religions have some kind of similar moral code because God has implanted right and wrong on our consciences, they disagree on virtually every major issue, including the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation! Think about it: the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation. Those are all the biggies!"

He then lists some of the differences which I might bring in later. So all this talk in here about religions being equidistant from the truth is not viable when you look at the major differences (often contradictory) of most religions.

[Lothian]

Because they are contradictory and they can't both be true. Correct, but they could both be wrong.
He then lists some of the differences which I might bring in later. So all this talk in here about religions being equidistant from the truth is not viable when you look at the major differences of most religions.Have you not read what people have said earlier? You seem to think that one religion has all the right answers. It is far more likely that in all their pot shots they each have a couple of hits.

[DOC]

How on earth do you measure the correctness of a religion and derive at a single, simple value that can easily be compared to that of other religions?

Even if there was one (and only one) god, and you could compare that god and its whishes, commands, etc. to the scriptures of a given religion: How would you evaluate this?

You look at the major issues of those religions and how they compare and whether or not they are contradictory or not (see my previous post, #119). Many major religions are contradictory and in no way can be equidistant from the truth.

[zooterkin]

And please note, when you lie about what you said in a forum thread, anyone can go back over your posting history and see that you're lying. You've denied yourself the possibility of a defence.

I think his defence is the one thing he keeps coming back to, the sheer number of posts. He hopes people won't have the patience to trawl through them and notice the inconsistencies, but instead be amazed by the quantity.

[RossFW]

"In fact, world religions have more contradictory beliefs than complementary ones. The notion that all religions teach basically the same thing --that we ought to love one another -- demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of world religions. While most religions have some kind of similar moral code because God has implanted right and wrong on our consciences, they disagree on virtually every major issue, including the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation! Think about it: the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation. Those are all the biggies!"

So, at a maximum, one out of the many thousands of religions is correct. The rest are Human constructs.

VERY powerful evidence that ALL are human constructs.

[Lothian]

You look at the major issues of those religions and how they compare and whether or not they are contradictory or not (see my previous post). Many major religions are contradictory and in no way can be equidistant from the truth.Take your biggie list and assume the ones that are right are

the nature of God, Deism
the nature of man, Bhudism
sin, All wrong
salvation, All wrong
heaven, All wrong
hell,All wrong
and
creation, shintoism

Which religion is nearest the truth and why?

[zooterkin]

You look at the major issues of those religions and how they compare and whether or not they are contradictory or not (see my previous post, #119). Many major religions are contradictory and in no way can be equidistant from the truth.

On any particular point. But there are many issues, and some religion may be right about one thing and wrong about another.

Ok, let's cut to the chase. Suppose I agree with your discredited premise, that if god(s) does exist, then one religion must be closest to the truth. What next? Where does it get us?

[DOC]

Correct, but they could both be wrong.

It would seem logical that God would give humans one true religion.



Have you not read what people have said earlier? You seem to think that one religion has all the right answers. It is far more likely that in all their pot shots they each have a couple of hits.

Maybe there is some unique minor wisdom in various religions, but on the big issues like the nature of God, sin, and salvation, it would seem likely that God would create one truth.

For example as Geisler point out many Hindus believe that evil is a complete illusion, while Christians, Muslims and Jews believe evil is real. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. And thus if God exists somebody is closer to the true nature of God.

[RossFW]

It would seem logical that God would give humans one true religion.


It would seem logical God would give ALL humans one true religion and make it clear to EVAERYONE- He didn't.

[Lothian]

It would seem logical that God would give humans one true religion. Are you suggeesting that a God or Gods must apply Human logic?

[Dave Rogers]

It would seem logical that God would give humans one true religion.

Again, I call ineffability on this one. If the nature of God cannot be comprehended, then we cannot comprehend the reason why he did not give us a true religion. And if the nature of God cannot be comprehended and need not follow logic, then it is conceivable that religions are (a) all right yet contradictory on every possible point, (b) wrong in different ways yet all equally wrong, or even (c) in agreement in all ways yet individually wrong by different amounts. Once you abandon the laws of logic, as is done when you invoke an ineffable God, then all outcomes are possible however self-contradictory they may be. A point you repeatedly decline to address.

Dave

[shadron]

If the religion that was the closest to God had a founder (like Christianity) who said "I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the Father {God, the father} but by me". That would prevent 2 or more belief systems from being equidistant to the truth.

If your God is powerful enough to burn up the universe (whatever that means) on a whim, then I would think that contemplating his divine nature, and comparing it to the theology/ritualism/politics/morality of one religion or another would be equivalent to comparing the distance of individual sand grains on San Francisco's Ocean Beach from your easy chair on a planet near Alpha Centauri. God's nature is ineffable, unknowable; how can any comparison even begin to work? What are you comparing - god's demonology against a Baptist's? A face-off between the various Creed's? God's position on Orthodox iconography? God's morality vs the RC's morality? As propounded by a) the works of the early church fathers; b) the Pope's ex cathedra statements; c) some average of bishopric official statements on morality in the 16th century; d) your own morality? What does the statement even mean, "closest to god's nature"? Are you going to use some exterior comparison, or is this just another case of the Bible's authority, inspired by god as it was?

It's like you're trying to find the direction that points to the center of the universe.

(Honestly, Dave, I didn't read your posting just above until I finished writing this.)

[joobz]

It would seem logical that God would give humans one true religion.
I accept your premise.
Then why do you we have so many religions?
By your statement, it could be argued that since we do not have 1 religion, then we must
1.) Not have a logical god
or
2.) Not have a kind/caring god
or
3.) not have a single god
or
3.) Do not have a god.


Maybe there is some unique minor wisdom in various religions, but on the big issues like the nature of God, sin, and salvation, it would seem likely that God would create one truth.

For example as Geisler point out many Hindus believe that evil is a complete illusion, while Christians, Muslims and Jews believe evil is real. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. And thus if God exists somebody is closer to the true nature of God.
Would you care to explain what you mean by evil and describe what you mean by saying that christianity believes in evil and hinduism doesn't? Perhaps answer this question:
How does christianity and hinduism address the paradox:
"If god is omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent, why does suffering and injustice exist?"

In christian terms, Is slavery evil? If so, then why does Jesus and god allow for slavery? Why do they allow and set rules for that evil? If slavery is not evil according to christianity, what does that say about christian morality?

In christian terms, is slaughtering the children of your enemy evil?

[bruto]

When it comes down to it, the basic question runs into a pragmatic wall. Even if it is theoretically possible that God exists, and furthermore that among the countless varieties of religious beliefs one comes closest to truth, if we have no way of knowing which one it is, then what is the use of theorizing?

All you can really say is that if you believe you have the one true religion, you are right unless you're wrong.

[LarianLeQuella]

If time travel technology exists, is it more like that depicted in Terminator, Time Cop, or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?

DUH! WYLD STALLIONS RULE!!!!!!

the universe could end in custard.


Mmmmm! Now I'm hungry! Hurry up and end already!

[Undesired Walrus]

I don't mean this as an attack, but as an earnest question: Why bother appealing to logic or reason (as you do in the OP) at all if you allow a magical creature to change the rules?


It seems to occur much in religous faith. If something in science appears to support your religious belief (the old 'fine tuning' argument), then you support science and your faith is enhanced. If scientific observations about the cosmos seem to be highly at odds with your religion, then science is relegated, surrounded by quote marks, and your faith remains the same as it was. The cake that you had is now resting in your stomach.

A Jehovah once said to me that Genesis correctly lays out what scientists believe, that life came out of the oceans and onto land. Yet the Jehovah rejected evolution. That you cannot have one without the other did not seem to cross his mind.

[DOC]

It would seem logical God would give ALL humans one true religion and make it clear to EVAERYONE- He didn't.

Not yet -- but Christ did say go into all the world and preach the gospel. That was done then by his apostles which is why we are here talking about it 2000 years later and it is still being done now as evidenced by the rapid growth of Christianity in China and other places like Africa. And with satellite and cable and Christian TV and Christian missionaries it just a matter of time before every person on this earth will be able to yes or no to the simple message of the Gospel.

[X]

Here is what Norman Geisler says on page 45 of his book "I don't have enough faith to be and atheist" which we talk about in depth in my other thread in the history, literature section.

"In fact, world religions have more contradictory beliefs than complementary ones. The notion that all religions teach basically the same thing --that we ought to love one another -- demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of world religions. While most religions have some kind of similar moral code because God has implanted right and wrong on our consciences, they disagree on virtually every major issue, including the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation! Think about it: the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation. Those are all the biggies!"



The bolded section matters if you're a Christian.

If you aren't Christian, it's a moot point. Someone from a certain different religion might find Christianity completely lacking in explaining thetans, for example. Very important, thetans. Kind of a big deal, to some people.
Are thetans a big deal to you?
No?
Well guess what: The stuff in bold is as important to a non-Christian as thetans are to you.

What Geisler has done is assumed from the outset that his Christianity is correct, and then selectively chosen topics that could support his preconception. As such, he's made an argument that appeals only to Christians. This is fine, if all you want to do is reinforce fragile beliefs by assuming the conclusion is correct in your argument. It does not work for non-Christians, though. Because we don't care about those things.

It's begging the question, and Geisler is either lying for Jesus, or is an idiot.

[GeeMack]

What Geisler has done is assumed from the outset that his Christianity is correct, and then selectively chosen topics that could support his preconception.

It's begging the question, and Geisler is either lying for Jesus, or is an idiot.


Very much like DOC in that regard, yes?

[Lothian]

Not yet -- but Christ did say go into all the world and preach the gospel. That was done then by his apostles which is why we are here talking about it 2000 years later and it is still being done now as evidenced by the rapid growth of Christianity in China and other places like Africa. And with satellite and cable and Christian TV and Christian missionaries it just a matter of time before every person on this earth will be able to yes or no to the simple message of the Gospel.You are aware that more people are saying no than yes and Christianity is shrinking.

[DOC]

Are you suggeesting that a God or Gods must apply Human logic?God is about order and perfection as evidenced by such things as the split second timing of the planets orbits. It would seem rational to assume his existence is orderly.
The 10 commandments also demonstrate order.

[X]

God is about order and perfection as evidenced by such things as the split second timing of the planets orbits.

eh?

Are you sure you aren't just seeing evidence where you want to see it?

[learner]

The bolded section matters if you're a Christian.

If you aren't Christian, it's a moot point. Someone from a certain different religion might find Christianity completely lacking in explaining thetans, for example. Very important, thetans. Kind of a big deal, to some people.
Are thetans a big deal to you?
No?
Well guess what: The stuff in bold is as important to a non-Christian as thetans are to you.

What Geisler has done is assumed from the outset that his Christianity is correct, and then selectively chosen topics that could support his preconception. As such, he's made an argument that appeals only to Christians. This is fine, if all you want to do is reinforce fragile beliefs by assuming the conclusion is correct in your argument. It does not work for non-Christians, though. Because we don't care about those things.

It's begging the question, and Geisler is either lying for Jesus, or is an idiot.

Geisler- "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist"

Idiot box ticked.

[GeeMack]

God is about order and perfection as evidenced by such things as the split second timing of the planets orbits. It would seem rational to assume his existence is orderly.
The 10 commandments also demonstrate order.


No, DOC. That's begging the question. None of that is evidence of, nor demonstrates any such thing.

[RossFW]

Not yet -- but Christ did say go into all the world and preach the gospel. That was done then by his apostles which is why we are here talking about it 2000 years later and it is still being done now as evidenced by the rapid growth of Christianity in China and other places like Africa. And with satellite and cable and Christian TV and Christian missionaries it just a matter of time before every person on this earth will be able to yes or no to the simple message of the Gospel.

So the Creator of the Universe had to wait for Humans to invent cable TV before he could get the word out?

[joobz]

It's begging the question, and Geisler is either lying for Jesus, or is an idiot.
It's been demonstrated multiple times over that Geisler is a terrible argumenter.
His book contains nonsense backed by logical fallacy. (I still enjoy the University of a compound word of unity and diversity)
He was completely destroyed in his debate with Till.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/
and he refused to acknowledge the clear refutation of his arguments.

As such, I'd argue that he's an idiot who is willing to lie to make an argument.

[joobz]

Not yet
So your best counter argument is that god simply hasn't gotten arround to unifing the religions yet?

[Twiler]

God is about order and perfection as evidenced by such things as the split second timing of the planets orbits. It would seem rational to assume his existence is orderly.
The 10 commandments also demonstrate order.

Response:

In the year 1166 B.C., a malcontented hunchbrain by the name of Greyface, got it into his head that the universe was as humorless as he, and he began to teach that play was sinful because it contradicted the ways of Serious Order. "Look at all the order around you," he said. And from that, he deluded honest men to believe that reality was a straightjacket affair and not the happy romance as men had known it.

It is not presently understood why men were so gullible at that particular time, for absolutely no one thought to observe all the disorder around them and conclude just the opposite. But anyway, Greyface and his followers took the game of playing at life more seriously than they took life itself and were known even to destroy other living beings whose ways of life differed from their own.

The unfortunate result of this is that mankind has since been suffering from a psychological and spiritual imbalance. Imbalance causes frustration, and frustration causes fear. And fear makes for a bad trip. Man has been on a bad trip for a long time now.

And how, exactly, are the planetary orbits orderly?

[bokonon]

And with satellite and cable and Christian TV and Christian missionaries it just a matter of time before every person on this earth will be able to yes or no to the simple message of the Gospel.
Except, I guess, for the billions of people who died before there was a word to hear, or died before the missionaries got around to invading their country and knocking on their door.

But whatever. Put me down for "no".

[calebprime]

You are aware that more people are saying no than yes and Christianity is shrinking.

Hate to dance the Larson, but:

Evidence? cha-cha-cha.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Christianity_shrinking

[LarianLeQuella]

calebprime, those 30 million were mostly from all those bloody catholics breeding like rabbits. Soon they will all get sold off for medical experimentation anyway.

[calebprime]

Yeah, I guess Lothian meant people like us--you know, real people.:D

No, that could have been corrected with some simple qualifiers:

Europe, or educated elites, or whatever.

[Z]

In answer to the OP - it's a truism. Of course, given the vast number of religious sects and cults throughout human history, if a god existed, one or more is closer to the truth than any other - simply because humans have created just about every possible, potential religion involving a 'god' that could exists, at one point or another.

But as to how to know which one it is - that's where the impossibility lays. Doc goes on and on about how Christianity is spread, but that's not the only religion that has a mission to spread by word of mouth. And who's to say that the one true religion was squashed flat at its inception, and involved an intelligent God without the will or power or interest to bother trying again? There's just absolutely, without a doubt, no way to discern one 'true religion' from any other.

At least we can examine historical evidence and conclude that Christianity is on very flimsy footing, at best. Not as flimsy as, say, the Mormons or the Wiccans, but flimsy nonetheless.

In fact, does any major religion actually feature any major historical accuracy? Buddhism, perhaps? Discordianism, maybe?

As for another point - the God of the Christians is not at all about order. Certainly, It's not about logic, or reason, or love... depending on what part of the Bible you read, it's not really clear what this God is about.

And while the fundamental rules that govern the Universe are orderly, the resultant Universe is anything but.

[Z]

Hate to dance the Larson, but:

Evidence? cha-cha-cha.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Christianity_shrinking

A wiki is a lousy place to get evidence. Show me that this answer wasn't written by a Christian with an agenda.

According to some studies, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds; according to others, it's rapidly shrinking. Part of the problem is in defining 'Christian' - if you go with the common notion that 'only MY church is truly Christian' then all you can do is examine that church's growth rate. If you have a broader definition, then you have to give that definition. Are we discussing all Protestant faiths? All who call themselves Christian? All who acknowledge that Christ may have existed in some form?

With over 34,000 denominations, one could say that Christianity is growing in its variety....

Most sources agree that the church is growing, but many point out that other faiths are growing at more advanced rates. One source, for example, puts the growth rate of Christianity the same as the global population growth rate; meanwhile, the same source puts the Islamic growth rate at a somewhat higher percent. Therefore, adjusting for overall population growth, Christianity would be said to remain stable - or maybe even be shrinking somewhat.

Here's one list of growth projections: http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

In the U.S., Christianity appears to be losing its footing - there has been a decrease in people identifying themselves as Christian of about 1% per year, according to some sources.

It's a thorny issue, really.

Another link to Christian trends: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm

[Upchurch]

So your best counter argument is that god simply hasn't gotten arround to unifing the religions yet?
That is exactly my criticism of this line of thinking. If we allow for a magical being that can do anything, then why bother applying rules of logic to the question in the first place?

What is the point of this DOC?

[Toke]

It seems to occur much in religous faith. If something in science appears to support your religious belief (the old 'fine tuning' argument), then you support science and your faith is enhanced. If scientific observations about the cosmos seem to be highly at odds with your religion, then science is relegated, surrounded by quote marks, and your faith remains the same as it was. The cake that you had is now resting in your stomach.

A Jehovah once said to me that Genesis correctly lays out what scientists believe, that life came out of the oceans and onto land. Yet the Jehovah rejected evolution. That you cannot have one without the other did not seem to cross his mind.

I wrote this in another tread but it fit nicely here too.

"All that leaping of faith is exausting, so you find some pseudiscience to rest on"

[calebprime]

A wiki is a lousy place to get evidence. Show me that this answer wasn't written by a Christian with an agenda.

According to some studies, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds; according to others, it's rapidly shrinking. Part of the problem is in defining 'Christian' - if you go with the common notion that 'only MY church is truly Christian' then all you can do is examine that church's growth rate. If you have a broader definition, then you have to give that definition. Are we discussing all Protestant faiths? All who call themselves Christian? All who acknowledge that Christ may have existed in some form?

With over 34,000 denominations, one could say that Christianity is growing in its variety....

Most sources agree that the church is growing, but many point out that other faiths are growing at more advanced rates. One source, for example, puts the growth rate of Christianity the same as the global population growth rate; meanwhile, the same source puts the Islamic growth rate at a somewhat higher percent. Therefore, adjusting for overall population growth, Christianity would be said to remain stable - or maybe even be shrinking somewhat.

Here's one list of growth projections: http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

In the U.S., Christianity appears to be losing its footing - there has been a decrease in people identifying themselves as Christian of about 1% per year, according to some sources.

It's a thorny issue, really.

Another link to Christian trends: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm

Thanks, I agree that the wiki is undependable, and that one shouldn't use a biased source.

I just didn't want to accept the "Christianity is shrinking" line without question.

Not that it has much bearing on the op, of course...

fwiw, there was a catholic women I thought was haughty-hot-hot.

[Lothian]

Thanks, I agree that the wiki is undependable, and that one shouldn't use a biased source.

I just didn't want to accept the "Christianity is shrinking" line without question.

Not that it has much bearing on the op, of course...

fwiw, there was a catholic women I thought was haughty-hot-hot.Sorry. I posted a link a while back, I will see if I can dig it out. It recorded the changing belief. Certainly all religions are gaining new members but they also lose some. The figure you posted doesn't look like net figures.

Edited to add.

It is a bugger to navigate round and link to but this report (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports?section=a4#) contains interesting data.

[mikeyx]

Doc, I answered this more fully in the other thread. If the Christian God exists then Christianity is the most likely. If the Islamic God exists then Islam is the most likely.

If we assume a random God exists then there is no reason why any religion should describe the true nature of that God better than any other. If we look at the world today and assume there is a God we can only conclude that he is random or he does not intervene in life on earth and no religions get anywhere near his true nature.

some would argue the islamic, christian and judiac gods are one and the same

[Olowkow]

If a god existed, and if he/it were not stupid, every single human on earth would know it immediately, innately, and unambiguously. No need to pay a priest to figure it out for you. No need to fart around trying to decode some bronze age ramblings.

Man just makes gods up in his own image...not surprising that our gods always hate the same stuff we hate.

[TheClaw]

I think the OP question is nonsensical, but I can play along if I add some more assumptions:
Assume the nature of god is like a number, a single point along a known line (from negative infinity to infinity). Then assume that each religion's idea of the nature of god is another number along that line. Also assume that no two religions' ideas are at the same point.
Given these new assumptions, I can answer that yes, some religion's idea will be closer to the actual nature of god than any other religion (except that since this is a line, two religions could be equidistant on different sides of god). You could also line up all religions in order of their accuracy about the nature of god.
Now that we're playing with numbers in a conventional way, I propose that statistically no current, modern religion is likely to be closest. Given the number of personal religions that have existed in the past and don't exist anymore -- those understood by a single person to those understood by small families or tribes -- I would say that statistically it is most likely a religion that no longer exists. If we assume that humanity will continue to exist and continue making up religions at the same rate it has in the past, perhaps statistically the closest religion will be invented in the future. But again, it is not likely to exist now.

[bruto]

some would argue the islamic, christian and judiac gods are one and the sameAnd yet, if that is the case, we certainly have a huge problem with that god, because it appears that he is misleading a goodly percentage of his own followers. According to at least some of those sects, the adherents of the others are not favored for salvation, and not in possession of the truth. If they are correct about that, then God has misled them in a most despicable way. If they are incorrect about that, then they have missed God's point so utterly that we end up with the paradox that the religions which worship the true God are as utterly clueless about his true nature as anyone else!

[DOC]

So the Creator of the Universe had to wait for Humans to invent cable TV before he could get the word out?If he wanted to do it through humans --yes. If he wanted to personally and physically tell each and every human and thus probably intimidate and pressure people into being forced to love and honor Him -- No.

[DOC]

It's been demonstrated multiple times over that Geisler is a terrible argumenter.
His book contains nonsense backed by logical fallacy. (I still enjoy the University of a compound word of unity and diversity)
He was completely destroyed in his debate with Till.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/
and he refused to acknowledge the clear refutation of his arguments.

As such, I'd argue that he's an idiot who is willing to lie to make an argument.

So then, you think the publisher of his 62 books made a mistake.

[Hokulele]

If he wanted to do it through humans --yes. If he wanted to personally and physically tell each and every human and thus probably intimidate and pressure people into being forced to love and honor Him -- No.


The concept of hell isn't intimidation and pressure?

So then, you think the publisher of his 62 books made a mistake.


Kevin Trudeau is further proof that idiocy can be profitable.

[DOC]

Response:



And how, exactly, are the planetary orbits orderly?

I'm not a physicist but Issac Newton discovered the orbits were quite orderly and he used math to prove it.

[Hokulele]

I'm not a physicist but Issac Newton discovered the orbits were quite orderly and he used math to prove it.


How accurate were his calculations for Mercury's orbit?

[DOC]

Except, I guess, for the billions of people who died before there was a word to hear, or died before the missionaries got around to invading their country and knocking on their door.

But whatever. Put me down for "no".

I have a feeling a just omniscient God knows who knew what when.

[paximperium]

I'm not a physicist but Issac Newton discovered the orbits were quite orderly and he used math to prove it.
No you are not a physicist and Newton was wrong. In fact, he couldn't explain the orbit of several planets because they were disorderly.

So he copped out and said, "Can't explain it therefore goddidit."

[paximperium]

So then, you think the publisher of his 62 books made a mistake.
No, the publisher made a great decision since a whole bunch of ignorant fools buy his books and keep buying them.

[biomorph]

I have a feeling a just omniscient God knows who knew what when.

And yet did nothing at the time to prevent it................classic.

Bone idle or non-existant?

If god existed, it'd do better.

If it can't do better then it can be beaten.

If it can be beaten it can be killed.

End of the god.

[Mojo]

God is about order and perfection as evidenced by such things as the split second timing of the planets orbits.


Precisely how many days are there in Earth's orbit?

[Toke]

Precisely how many days are there in Earth's orbit?

How many were there 100.000 years ago?

[DOC]

The concept of hell isn't intimidation and pressure?

The bible states that God wishes none should perish (go to hell). But God hates sin and is serious about it. He hates sin because it throws everything into disorder, and it is not in the best long term interest of the person who commits it or in society's best interest.

He gives everyone chances to repent and humble themselves, but there comes a point when God will give up on a person. There is even a verse where God says "leave him alone with his idols". Billy Graham says he thinks that's the saddest verse in the bible because God gave up on that person...

Also, I'd like to mention when a person gets deeper into Christianity their relationship with God is not one of fear. They are not good because of fear of hell.

[Hokulele]

So it is intimidation and pressure. Got it.

[DOC]

No you are not a physicist and Newton was wrong. In fact, he couldn't explain the orbit of several planets because they were disorderly.

Not really, they were just influenced by forces that Newton was unaware of at the time. But Einstein didn't think those forces were disorderly because he stated he believed "God doesn't play with dice".

[paximperium]

The bible states that God wishes none should perish (go to hell). But God hates sin and is serious about it. He hates sin because it throws everything into disorder, and it is not in the best long term interest of the person who commits it or in society's best interest.

He gives everyone chances to repent and humble themselves, but there comes a point when God will give up on a person. There is even a verse where God says "leave him alone with his idols". Billy Graham says he thinks that's the saddest verse in the bible because God gave up on that person...

Also, I'd like to mention when a person gets deeper into Christianity their relationship with God is not one of fear. They are not good because of fear of hell.
Translation: "God made up the rules. Follow it or burn in hell."

[paximperium]

Not really, they were just influenced by forces that Newton was unaware of at the time. But Einstein didn't think those forces were disorderly because he stated he believed "God doesn't play with dice".
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Your Epic Fail continues to be very amusing. I do enjoy your weaseling out from your original Newton claim of order and now attempting another Argument from Authority using an misquote from Einstein.

[DOC]

Translation: "God made up the rules. Follow it or burn in hell."

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty; but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.

[DOC]

[I] I do enjoy your weaseling out from your original Newton claim of order and now attempting another Argument from Authority using an misquote from Einstein.

I'm not saying Einstein was a Christian but are you saying Einstein didn't say, "God doesn't play with dice".

When he says that, I interpret that to mean Einstein believes there is a definite "order" in the universe.

[Hokulele]

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty; but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.


The difference is that the laws created by man are communicated clearly to all who are required to abide by those laws.

God, not so much.

And how exactly does this relate to the question in the OP?

[paximperium]

I'm not saying Einstein was a Christian but are you saying Einstein didn't say, "God doesn't play with dice".

When he says that, I interpret that to mean Einstein believes there is a definite "order" in the universe.
So? How does order relate to your OP?

[paximperium]

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty; but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.

In other words, you agree and are attempting to justify that god makes up rules and punishes those who refuse to follow them with theats of hell.

[Sunstealer]

I don't think DOC understands that when Einstein said, "God doesn't play with dice" that a) he was referring to quantum mechanics and not the orbits of the planets (which is classical) and b) he was wrong.

[DOC]

So? How does order relate to your OP?

If you followed the chain of discussion you would see how it relates. Chains can go in all directions and still be connected.

[DOC]

I don't think DOC understands that when Einstein said, "God doesn't play with dice" that a) he was referring to quantum mechanics and not the orbits of the planets (which is classical) and b) he was wrong.

If Einstein could be wrong about one thing (especially science) then he could be wrong about whether or not there is an intelligent God or not.

[bruto]

If Einstein could be wrong about one thing (especially science) then he could be wrong about whether or not there is an intelligent God or not.A point better made by someone who did not cite Einstein than by one who did.

[paximperium]

If Einstein could be wrong about one thing (especially science) then he could be wrong about whether or not there is an intelligent God or not.
That is inherently one of the most blatantly hypocritical statements I've ever heard.

To paraphrase DOC's argument: "Einstein is right about order and whatever I decide but he is wrong about god and whatever I decide."

[paximperium]

If you followed the chain of discussion you would see how it relates. Chains can go in all directions and still be connected.
I've followed it rather closely and still find absolutely nothing about your rather pathetic Argument to Order even related towards your OP.

Unless you want to continue to argue that your god only exist in the little gaps of human knowledge.

[joobz]

So then, you think the publisher of his 62 books made a mistake.Instead of refuting my reasons for callling Geisler a liar and a terrible apologist, you mention some nonsense about his publisher. That's called diversion and is only done when a person has no response to an argument made.

In other words, DOC you effectively admitted that Geisler is a terrible argumenter and a liar. Thank you.

[bruto]

If you followed the chain of discussion you would see how it relates. Chains can go in all directions and still be connected.
nevertheless....12584

[joobz]

How did we go from the OP to christianity?

The OP asked that if god is true, one religion must be closer to the truth than all others. HEre's a summary of the problems with this argument.
1.) Close doesn't count in religion. If a key doctorine is false, than that religion is simply false. For instance, Christ is god. If it turns out that all elements of the bible are true except that, then christianity is false. And any "closer"-ness to the truth is meaningless. If christ is god, than christianity is true, regardless of how wrong the bible is.

2.) If we accept the OP is true, there is no reason to assume that the "closest to the truth" religion is christianity. This has simply been a selfish conceit of the original poster.

3.) If ignore the idea of key doctorine elements, than it is still possible for multiple religions to be equal in error or correctness.

4.) Finally, if the true religion of god is that of the Umbutiquats on Planet Nigel7 in the alpha sector of universe 7, then does it really matter how close any of our religions on earth are to the truth?

[Radrook]

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Based on the description given above, a confusion of beliefs isn't what the biblically-described God would provide. If indeed a confusion of beliefs emerges, then it has to be traceable to people.

James 3:16
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion....

BTW
I am of course assuming that the hypothetical God that is being discussed is the one who is described as having inspired the Bible.
If the hypothetical God is a nondescript ID, then the answer would of course depend on that hypothetical God's personality and values and the question would have to be answered accordingly.

[paximperium]

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Based on the description given above, a confusion of beliefs isn't what the biblically- described God would provide. If indeed a confusion of beliefs emerges, then it has to be traceable to people.

James 3:16
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion....
In other words, "It is your fault for ending up in hell."

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty; but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.


The difference is that the laws created by man are communicated clearly to all who are required to abide by those laws.

God, not so much.

It is more likely that people have a bible in their residence than a copy of city, state, and federal statutes. Didn't you yourself say you've owned (or read) three different versions of the bible.

[Toke]

Try read it again, pay attention to:
"communicated clearly "

[bruto]

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Based on the description given above, a confusion of beliefs isn't what the biblically-described God would provide. If indeed a confusion of beliefs emerges, then it has to be traceable to people. Quite so, but what have you really accomplished by saying this? The confusion of beliefs is there to see, and the people who are uttering that confusion are all convinced that they, not the others, are right. You, for example, appear to be convinced that your beliefs are correct, and yet we have nothing but our own beliefs and prejudices with which to judge your veracity. If, indeed, the confusion is owing to people, these are people who believe that God speaks to them and gives them the truth. We have no way to confirm this.

James 3:16
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion....

BTW
I am of course assuming that the hypothetical God that is being discussed is the one who is described as having inspired the Bible.
If the hypothetical God is a nondescript ID, then the answer would of course depend on that hypothetical God's personality and values and the question would have to be answered accordingly.

Under that scenario then malicious intent and even insanity and other such character anomalies might become relevant. I believe it's relevant now, unless you can provide some rational way in which we can reconcile the god of scripture with the age-old, bloody and irrational conflict that followers of that god have inflicted upon each other. If the god who is said to have spoken through scripture has done such a poor job of unifying his followers and disabusing them of their horrific, often even genocidal, errors, then I think it's reasonable to raise questions about that god's competence and benevolence.

Simply put, if the god of scripture is the true God, then he's a bumbler.

[Safe-Keeper]

North Korean law states that Kim il-Sung and Kim jong-Il wishes none should perish (go to death camps or labour camps). But Kim jong-Il hates crime and revolt and is serious about it. He hates crime and revolt because it throws everything into disorder, and it is not in the best long term interest of the person who commits it or in society's best interest.

He gives everyone chances to be loyal citizens, but there comes a point when even Kim il-Jong, Hitler, Mao and Stalin give up on a person.It is odd how it's so easy for a human being to recognize tyranny when it's others living in it, and yet so hard for that same person to see it when he himself is led by a tyrant.

Moses massacred 3000 people for worshiping the Golden Calf instead of God.
Hitler beheaded Sophie Scholl for spreading anti-Nazi leaflets. Is there a difference?

If we were Good Germans in 1943, would we say that Nazis did nothing wrong because they gave Sophie Scholl every opportunity to be a loyal, law-abiding German citizen, and that she brought the punishment unto herself by exercising her free will?

It's starting to dawn on me why Hitler used Christianity to run his dictatorship. It fits so well:p.

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty; but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.Yeah, 'cause we all know what happens when you leave Christianity. Just look at poor Iceland!

http://www.globalmissionnetwork.is/images/reykjavik30.jpg

http://www.ismennt.is/not/jonasg/0landid/jg05/rvik-esja/reykjavik-esja-26355.jpg

http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/church-of-hallgrimur-reykjavik-isl110.jpg

Oh, wait, it's #1 on the Human Development Index. My bad.

[Hokulele]

It is more likely that people have a bible in their residence than a copy of city, state, and federal statutes.


And it is more likely that people have a better general idea of what is or is not legal in their city, state, or country than what is or isn't allowed in the bible. Especially if we are talking about people who live in different parts of the globe.

Didn't you yourself say you've owned (or read) three different versions of the bible.


Didn't you yourself say you have never read the entire bible?

[joobz]

Didn't you yourself say you've owned (or read) three different versions of the bible.


Didn't you yourself say you have never read the entire bible?
Hokulele, for the win.


BTW, DOC. Can you point to me which part of the bible informs me about what I'm supposed to do at stop signs? Or where in the bible it says that I may not own slaves?

[Silentknight]

So then, you think the publisher of his 62 books made a mistake.

You're right, there's no way an author could ever get such ridiculous crap published. Otherwise we'd end up with books about Mary Sues who fall in love with sparkly vampires with no personality and then have movies made out of them!

[Bill Thompson]

If God Exists is it likely that one religion has teachings closer to his true nature


God is that which no greater can be thought.
The number 3 is equally as close to infinity than the number 1.

So in conclusion, your topic is nonsense.

[slingblade]

So then, you think the publisher of his 62 books made a mistake.

Only if you think it is a publisher's job to publish only true things.

I think it's a publisher's job to publish whatever will make money.

Which, yes, can result in mistakes being made. Yes, sixty-two times.

[Radrook]

Another absurd, galavanting, self-proclaimed omniscient!

[Safe-Keeper]

Only if you think it is a publisher's job to publish only true things.

I think it's a publisher's job to publish whatever will make money.

Which, yes, can result in mistakes being made. Yes, sixty-two times.Keep shooting down those appeals to popularity from DOC. There's a lot of them, and they don't go away by themselves.

Another absurd, galavanting, self-proclaimed omniscient!Oh, the whole "you have to be omniscient to know there's no god" line. You mean like how you're omniscient because you dismiss trolls out of hand without having dug through every mountain in Norway.

Why do you keep spouting the 'omniscience is required to dismiss something' when we've pointed out to you how it's special pleadin-- oh, wait, you have half of us on ignore. My bad.

[Jackalgirl]

DOC,

I guess it depends on the characteristics of the God you assume to exist. I am a theist, and in my worldview, God is an infinite thing. To use the word "God" (or "thing" for that matter), is a finite action and therefore is imperfect, but we are finite beings and we have finite understanding, so that's the best we can do. If God is infinite, then trying to pin God down as having one "kind" of nature is illogical.

My belief is that all and none of the religions are correct (and incorrect) all at the same time. Each of them attempts to develop a relationship between people (or, depending on the religion and its "flavor", a single person or a select group of people) and an infinite being. No single one of them can be right in all its aspects.

The fact that human beings are incredibly diverse (and have different ways of approaching the universe, whether it be cultural approaches, "family values" or even as individuals) and assuming that 1: God exists and that 2: God made human beings that way, it seems absolutely illogical to me to propose that there is only one, true way to interact with God.

So, no, I personally believe that it is impossible for any one religion to "know" God's "true nature", since that nature is infinite and an organized religion is, by dint of it being human, finite.

[Jackalgirl]

This is incorrect, it is impossible for the Mormon concept of God and the mainline Christian concept of God to be equal since they are so different.

It also impossible for the Islam religion and the Christian religion to be equally correct because there are big differences in their dogmas.


Why would you think this? If God is either infinite or omnipotent, then God it would be completely possible for God to maintain different conceptual forms for his/its/hers/their worshippers. After all, God can do anything, right?

[joobz]

Another absurd, galavanting, self-proclaimed omniscient!

Oh, the whole "you have to be omniscient to know there's no god" line. You mean like how you're omniscient because you dismiss trolls out of hand without having dug through every mountain in Norway.

Why do you keep spouting the 'omniscience is required to dismiss something' when we've pointed out to you how it's special pleadin-- oh, wait, you have half of us on ignore. My bad.

Thanks for the Post, Safe-keeper. I had absolutely no clue what Radrook was talking about in his post. In truth, I hope you are wrong about it, becuase it would really be a horrible argument.

1.) You can't know god doesn't exist because you aren't omniscient.
2.) I know without any doubt that christianity god is there and it is a christian god.
3.) My knowledge of god isn't subject to criticism 1 because...... I say so.

[DOC]

Try read it again, pay attention to:
"communicated clearly "

Have you ever read any statutes, I'll take the Bible over some of the legal babel in the statutes.

[DOC]

BTW, DOC. Can you point to me which part of the bible informs me about what I'm supposed to do at stop signs? Or where in the bible it says that I may not own slaves?

I'm glad you brought up the off topic subject of slavery for about the 30th time in the last 2 years. From the book "Birth of Christianity" by John Crosson:

"The most oppressed social strata in the Roman empire were the fairly poor and impoverished sections of the rural population. Among those sectors those who suffered worst were not the slaves on the latifundia (plantations), who were of value to their masters and were at least regularly fed, but the mass of nominally "free" peasants, who were without means of support and who, in the provinces, often also lacked the privileged status of a Roman citizen. For example, the life of the "free" country-dwellers of Judaea or Egypt was far worse than that of the slaves on {an Italian} estate.

Source: Geza Alfoldy, The Social History of Rome, pp 145-146

You can't compare our modern concept of slavery in the US to that time and place 2000 years ago. Slavery was as much a part of the economy back then as minimum wage workers are a part of out society. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

[DOC]

Didn't you yourself say you have never read the entire bible?

Yes, and Thomas Edison never got past the 3rd grade.

[FireGarden]

Keep shooting down those appeals to popularity from DOC. There's a lot of them, and they don't go away by themselves.

Oh, the whole "you have to be omniscient to know there's no god" line. You mean like how you're omniscient because you dismiss trolls out of hand without having dug through every mountain in Norway.

Did you know that the Heroes of Telemark hoped that the Trolls would be with them? (Or, at least, they did in the movie!)

How dare you impugn their heroism?

[Akhenaten]

Didn't you yourself say you have never read the entire bible?


Yes, and Thomas Edison never got past the 3rd grade.




From "The Education of Thomas Edison" by Jim Powell:


As a home-schooled, self-educated youth, Edison learned lessons that were to serve him all his life. He learned education was his own responsibility. He learned to take initiative. He learned to be persistent. He learned he could gain practical knowledge, inspiration and wisdom by reading books. He learned to discover all kinds of things from methodical observation. He learned education is a continuing, joyful process.


Link to quoted text (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/9502powe.html)


Can you see how an attempted comparison between your own "self-education" and Thomas Edison's might not work?

[soikins]

Yes, and Thomas Edison never got past the 3rd grade.

Do I sense a Galileo Fallacy (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Galileo_fallacy) in that text? No, it couldn't be, DOC, you probably mentioned this "fact" without implying anything, right?

[slingblade]

Another absurd, galavanting, self-proclaimed omniscient!


We know you are, but we all keep hoping you'll outgrow it one day.

[Mojo]

Have you ever read any statutes, I'll take the Bible over some of the legal babel in the statutes.


Actually, the reason that statutes are often difficult to understand, and the convoluted language that they use, is that they are written, not to be clear, but so as not to be ambiguous. Not always successfully, of course, and they still have to be interpreted in the light of the real-world circumstances in which they are applied.

[bruto]

Have you ever read any statutes, I'll take the Bible over some of the legal babel in the statutes. No surprise, given your penchant for sloppy thinking and tendentious misinterpretation, both of which the Bible encourages.

[bruto]

Yes, and Thomas Edison never got past the 3rd grade.
Yes, and Edison, for all his great accomplishments, was a notorious anti-intellectual snob, who probably wasted a great deal of time and effort because of that. But Edison was also a brilliant man who did his own work, and his work spoke for itself. He did not claim to know and understand the content of things he had not learned. To use Edison as an analogy for yourself would be to claim that you have invented a new religion that transcends the Bible.

You need to work on your analogies. It's not your strong point.

[DOC]

When it comes down to it, the basic question runs into a pragmatic wall. Even if it is theoretically possible that God exists, and furthermore that among the countless varieties of religious beliefs one comes closest to truth, if we have no way of knowing which one it is, then what is the use of theorizing?

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.

If you see 50 athletes that say Christianity has changed their life for the better and 4 Muslims say Islam has changed their life for the better than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely the true religion.

If hundreds of people say they were healed by a Benny Hinn crusade or an Oral Roberts crusade but have never heard of any Muslim, Jew, or Buddist teacher healing people than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely true.

If you see one religion like Christianity that was able to peacefully spread with no weapons in the brutal dangerous Roman empire with very little description of what heaven is like, and then you have a religion like Islam that was mostly spread through the sword with the promise of a very pleasurable heaven with many virgins if you die in battle, which one would you say is most likely true.

[paximperium]

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.
How does getting off drugs have anything to do with any truth in religion?

Hey, millions have gotten off drugs on their own!!! It must be because of atheism!!!:rolleyes:

If you see 50 athletes that say Christianity has changed their life for the better and 4 Muslims say Islam has changed their life for the better than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely the true religion.
No it does not. Not one bit.

Since millions if not billions of lives were changed by Chairman Mao, perhaps what he says is true!!! :rolleyes:

If hundreds of people say they were healed by a Benny Hinn crusade or an Oral Roberts crusade but have never heard of any Muslim, Jew, or Buddist teacher healing people than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely true.
No. Benny Hinn is a liar and fraud. It is an example of why your absurd argument from popularity is garbage.

Millions of Hindus have been healed by yogis and the Hindu gods therefore Hinduism must be true :rolleyes:

If you see one religion like Christianity that was able to peacefully spread with no weapons in the brutal dangerous Roman empire with very little description of what heaven is like, and then you have a religion like Islam that was mostly spread through the sword with the promise of a very pleasurable heaven with many virgins if you die in battle, which one would you say is most likely true.
Your continued delusional lie continues to be open for all to see and completely irrelevant.
Christianity was spread by the sword and politics as much as any religion. Rome was not even close to brutal. It was the raging vandals or other barbarians who were brutal and dangerous. You must have missed its forceful spread among the pagans, south americas and the Crusades.

If you see one religion like Mormonism that was able to spread peacefully with no weapons in the Brutal and dangerous American West and then you have a brutal religion like Christianity killing off the Native Americans, which one would you say is likely true :rolleyes:

The inherent stupidity of DOC's arguments continue to be so blatantly bad and filled with logical fallacies that shooting his crap down is like kicking a retarded child.

[bruto]

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.

If you see 50 athletes that say Christianity has changed their life for the better and 4 Muslims say Islam has changed their life for the better than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely the true religion.

If hundreds of people say they were healed by a Benny Hinn crusade or an Oral Roberts crusade but have never heard of any Muslim, Jew, or Buddist teacher healing people than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely true.

If you see one religion like Christianity that was able to peacefully spread with no weapons in the brutal dangerous Roman empire with very little description of what heaven is like, and then you have a religion like Islam that was mostly spread through the sword with the promise of a very pleasurable heaven with many virgins if you die in battle, which one would you say is most likely true.

All you've proven by all of the above is that faith itself has benefits. You have not proven, in even the slightest, tiniest iota of a way, that the object of that faith is true. And whether or not you or anyone you know is aware of other incompatible faiths achieving the same results is simply an argument that ignorance is truth.

And really, speaking of representing ignorance as truth, even you should be ashamed of the utterly asinine, misinformed, ignorant, bigoted stupidity of that last paragraph.

[paximperium]

And really, speaking of representing ignorance as truth, even you should be ashamed of the utterly asinine, misinformed, ignorant, bigoted stupidity of that last paragraph.
I find it more telling when he readily believes in the complete and utter lies and garbage espoused by Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts.

[joobz]

I'm glad you brought up the off topic subject of slavery for about the 30th time in the last 2 years. From the book "Birth of Christianity" by John Crosson:

"The most oppressed social strata in the Roman empire were the fairly poor and impoverished sections of the rural population. Among those sectors those who suffered worst were not the slaves on the latifundia (plantations), who were of value to their masters and were at least regularly fed, but the mass of nominally "free" peasants, who were without means of support and who, in the provinces, often also lacked the privileged status of a Roman citizen. For example, the life of the "free" country-dwellers of Judaea or Egypt was far worse than that of the slaves on {an Italian} estate.

Source: Geza Alfoldy, The Social History of Rome, pp 145-146

You can't compare our modern concept of slavery in the US to that time and place 2000 years ago. Slavery was as much a part of the economy back then as minimum wage workers are a part of out society. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.


So, being a slave is better than being free and that made it ok in God's eyes? Are you aware of some of the arguments made against freeing black men and women in the 1800s?

Again, DOC. Where in the bible does it say slavery is wrong? This is simply a clear cut example of why the bible is a POOR source of morality and justice.

[Hokulele]

Benny Hinn? Seriously? DOC, you do know that this is a forum dedicated to skepticism, yes?

http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=benny+hinn

[zooterkin]

Posted by DOC

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty;

If there are no laws, what alternative do you see? Anarchy? Do you think man should not make laws?


but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.

Sorry, DOC, you're missing the point. There is no god to create laws, only men who have invented him to give authority to their laws.

[soikins]

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.

It's amazing how many mistakes you make in this proposed sociological research.
1) Random sampling would be rigged against Judaism because the chance of people knowing Christians is much higher (there are much more Christians in the world than Judaists). You have to take this in account either by making two separate samples or when interpreting the results.
2) Your "logical" conclusion doesn't follow either:
a) There is no guarantee that these "claims" are true (there is of course no guarantee that your respondents tell the truth either, but, well, that is a problem with the methodology you chose);
b)You haven't taken into account the number and size of Christian and Judaist "drug rehab" programs your research area;
c) And of course if you would have avoided all the aforementioned mistakes, the conclusion that "Christianity is more likely to be the true religion" is far fetched. The best you can get out of your survey is a little bit of evidence that Christians have a better chance to get off the drugs than Judaists. And this is only a correlation, which, of course, does not imply causation

[X]

This is simply a clear cut example of why the bible is a POOR source of morality and justice.


The Bible is not a source of morality and justice at all.

If one truly considered it to be such a tome, they would obey its every command. Because, after all, they believe it to be the source of morality.

Which means stoning people for being raped, slavery, stoning teenagers who talk back, hating gays, etc etc etc is all moral.

If one claims the Bible is a source of morality, but doesn't follow all the statues within it (saying, for example, that the rules are for different times), then they are picking and choosing their morality from its pages.

And if they are picking and choosing, they are obviously not using the Bible to guide their morals. Which means their morals are coming from somewhere other than the Bible. Which means the Bible is not their moral guide.

[DOC]

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.

If you see 50 athletes that say Christianity has changed their life for the better and 4 Muslims say Islam has changed their life for the better than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely the true religion.

If hundreds of people say they were healed by a Benny Hinn crusade or an Oral Roberts crusade but have never heard of any Muslim, Jew, or Buddist teacher healing people than you have evidence that Christianity is more likely true.

If you see one religion like Christianity that was able to peacefully spread with no weapons in the brutal dangerous Roman empire with very little description of what heaven is like, and then you have a religion like Islam that was mostly spread through the sword with the promise of a very pleasurable heaven with many virgins if you die in battle, which one would you say is most likely true.


All you've proven by all of the above is that faith itself has benefits. You have not proven, in even the slightest, tiniest iota of a way, that the object of that faith is true.

We're not talking about proof that God exists, we're talking about which religions are most likely to be closest to God if God exists. If you believe a religion that is closest to God should have some power like healing and life changing abilities then the religion that most demonstrates those factors is the one most likely to be closest to God. And I contend the evidence is that Christianity most demonstrates those factors.


And whether or not you or anyone you know is aware of other incompatible faiths achieving the same results is simply an argument that ignorance is truth.

You or anyone else is welcome to bring in statistics of Islam or Judaism or Buddhism etc. healing people or getting people off drugs.


And really, speaking of representing ignorance as truth, even you should be ashamed of the utterly asinine, misinformed, ignorant, bigoted stupidity of that last paragraph.

Please explain what was false about my last paragraph.

[Toke]

We're not talking about proof that God exists, we're talking about which religions are most likely to be closest to God if God exists. If you believe a religion that is closest to God should have some power like healing and life changing abilities then the religion that most demonstrates those factors is the one most likely to be closest to God. And I contend the evidence is that Christianity most demonstrates those factors.

Hard to tell.:D
The catholics got the most and "best documented" miracles, TV-fundies have the most faithhealing, african animalism have the most witches.

I know litle of the other religions, surely they can make impressive claims too.

It will be an extensive study to determine who got the best woo:D

Are you shopping around for the best religion?

[bruto]

We're not talking about proof that God exists, we're talking about which religions are most likely to be closest to God if God exists. If you believe a religion that is closest to God should have some power like healing and life changing abilities then the religion that most demonstrates those factors is the one most likely to be closest to God. And I contend the evidence is that Christianity most demonstrates those factors.What I think should be the case has little to do with what actually is the case. You beleive the religion closest to God is likely to give the most comfort, but there is no reason other than convenience or your pre-existing belief to say why that should be. Your reasoning, such as it is, appears circular.

You or anyone else is welcome to bring in statistics of Islam or Judaism or Buddhism etc. healing people or getting people off drugs.I need no statistics. You have made an argument based on a statement of ignorance. It is a bad argument, no matter whether the facts support your uninformed guess or not.

Please explain what was false about my last paragraph.The content! Why don't you look up some history and tell us what is true about it?

[Agatha]

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.

This is the craziest reasoning I've seen in ages.

Are these thousand people you are surveying (about their knowledge of recovering substance abusers) in the the bible belt of the US or Iran or Israel or the UK or where? Because you would get different answers to your survey in different places. By your own reasoning, the truth or otherwise of religion is entirely dependent on geography.

Back to the OP, if any god exists I would contend that it is not possible to speculate whether any religion is closer than any other to the "truth". We don't have evidence of any god, so all religions might be right and they might be wrong.

[Seismosaurus]

So, you think its OK for man to create laws to prevent chaos, and to punish violators with punishments all the way up to the death penalty; but its not OK for God to create laws to promote peace and order in His universe.

Civilized men create laws to govern other men who are part of their society. The lawmakers have the moral right to do so because they are elected for the society to act on its behalf.

God, if the bible is to be believed, imposes laws on others simply to exercise power over them, and his ultimate motivation is the glorification of himself.

There is a word for this. It is called "tyranny".

[Seismosaurus]

But we do have ways of knowing which one is more likely true. If you randomly survey a 1000 people and ask them if they know anyone who claims they have gotten off drugs through Judaism and 2 say they do; and then you ask the same 1000 how many of you know people who claim they have gotten off drugs through Christianity and 30 say they do then logically you have evidence that Christianity is more likely to be the true religion.

How does that follow? You are claiming that if a belief system helps people then it is more likely to be true. How does this follow? Can false beliefs not also help people?

[temporalillusion]

Christianity discounts itself from being the right one. The Bible itself says the way to destruction is broad and many will find that, but the way to life is narrow and few will find it. If this is true, then the narrow way should be one of the smallest religions, not THE biggest.

[DOC]

TBack to the OP, if any god exists I would contend that it is not possible to speculate whether any religion is closer than any other to the "truth". We don't have evidence of any god, so all religions might be right and they might be wrong.

But we do have some evidence that Christ rose from the dead, which would prove the Christian God.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

[MontagK505]

1 An invisible supernatural being (ISB) creates the universe. (a natural object)

2 We are born into this universe.

3 Everything we know about the universe indicates it works by laws inherent to itself.


Evidence for items 2, and 3 is quite strong.

Evidence for item 1 is ..well..... not good.

Any religion based on evidence in ISB is least likley to be true.

[paiute]

As Emo Phillips spake:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!'

'Why shouldn't I?' he said.

I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!'

He said, 'Like what?'

I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?'

He said, 'Religious.'

I said, 'Me too!

Are you Christian or Buddhist?'

He said, 'Christian.'

I said, 'Me too!

Are you Catholic or Protestant?'

He said, 'Protestant.'

I said, 'Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?'

He said, 'Baptist!'

I said, 'Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?'

He said, 'Baptist Church of God!'

I said, 'Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?'

He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church of God!'

I said, 'Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?'

He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!'

I said, 'Die, heretic scum,' and pushed him off.

[joobz]

But we do have some evidence that Christ rose from the dead, which would prove the Christian God.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Wow, DOC. A new source that adds some new claims to the ressurection story. Why not present this in the relevant thread and not this one?


In the mean time, perhaps you can address the multiple critiques made against the notion that 1 religion is "closer" to god than another?

Start by explaining how christianity is valid if all elements of the bible is true EXCEPT for christ being the son of god? Without that one element, you no longer have christianity and it's validity is completely lost.

Secondly, if the WHOLE bible is false, except for christ being the son of god, christianity would still be valid. Again, because christ being the flesh and blood son of god is the key central element to the faith.

As such, in these two extreme examples, I've been able to demonstrate that "Closer/farther" from the truth games is completely invalid.

In fact, I'd argue that because of this nature of the christian creed, it is probably one of the least likely to be "closest" to any nature of god. If, of course, god exists.


Again, let's repeat: If you kept to the golden rule but stated that christ was only a man and not a god, would it still be a christian religion?

[Jackalgirl]

Doc? Any commentary on my rejection of your implied supposition that God is finite?

[DOC]

Why would you think this? If God is either infinite or omnipotent, then God it would be completely possible for God to maintain different conceptual forms for his/its/hers/their worshippers. After all, God can do anything, right?

Logic 101 teaches something can't exist and not exist at the same time -- that would be an "absurdity". It's like saying true = false. Also it would be like you saying "you are pregnant" and the father of the child saying "you are not pregnant", you both can't be right, that would be an absurdity.
So when Mormonism teaches the God exists in human form on another planet and Mainline Christianity teaches God is not in human form but a Spirit then they both can't be right. That would be an absurdity. Some call it the Law of Non-Contradiction. So when looking at Mormonism and Mainline Christianity's concept of the nature of God it is impossible for them both to be right at the same time irregardless of whether God is infinite or not. God is not into absurdities, God's perfect.

[paximperium]

Logic 101 teaches something can't exist and not exist at the same time -- that would be an "absurdity". It's like saying true = false. Also it would be like you saying "you are pregnant" and the father of the child saying "you are not pregnant", you both can't be right, that would be an absurdity.
So when Mormonism teaches the God exists in human form on another planet and Mainline Christianity teaches God is not in human form but a Spirit then they both can't be right. That would be an absurdity. Some call it the Law of Non-Contradiction. So when looking at Mormonism and Mainline Christianity's concept of the nature of God it is impossible for them both to be right at the same time irregardless of whether God is infinite or not. God is not into absurdities, He's into perfection.
So god created all the rules of cosmos but has to follow these rules that he created? Talk about absurdities.

[Toke]

Logic 101 teaches something can't exist and not exist at the same time -- that would be an "absurdity". It's like saying true = false. Also it would be like you saying "you are pregnant" and the father of the child saying "you are not pregnant", you both can't be right, that would be an absurdity.
So when Mormonism teaches the God exists in human form on another planet and Mainline Christianity teaches God is not in human form but a Spirit then they both can't be right. That would be an absurdity. Some call it the Law of Non-Contradiction. So when looking at Mormonism and Mainline Christianity's concept of the nature of God it is impossible for them both to be right at the same time irregardless of whether God is infinite or not. God is not into absurdities, He's into perfection.

I throught your god was omnipotent, and now you tell me that he is hampered by some silly human concept like the Law of Non-Contradiction.

This is a disapointment.

[DOC]

So god created all the rules of cosmos but has to follow these rules that he created? Talk about absurdities.

If you assume God created the 10 commandments --

Would a God that is into absurdities create the orderly 10 commandments.

[Toke]

If you assume God created the 10 commandments -- would a God that is into absurdities create the orderly 10 commandments.

These are 2-3 sets of different orderly 10 commandments.
So your assumed god loves absurdities.

[paximperium]

If you assume God created the 10 commandments --

Would a God that is into absurdities create the orderly 10 commandments.
What irrelevant red herring.

Answer the question.
Does your sad version of god have to follow the rules that it created?
yes or no.

[Lothian]

If you assume God created the 10 commandments --

Would a God that is into absurdities create the orderly 10 commandments.I thought that myself. I was expecting the 8th commandment first, then the third then the tenth. When the bible had the first followed by the second then the third I was shocked.

[DOC]

I throught your god was omnipotent, and now you tell me that he is hampered by some silly human concept like the Law of Non-Contradiction.

This is a disapointment.

This is the old God can't make a weight so heavy he can't lift it. It's an absurdity and non-logical thinking -- take a logic 101 course. Atheists pride themselves on being logical, do you expect a theoretical God to be less intelligent than you.

[paximperium]

This is the old God can't make a weight so heavy he can't lift it. It's an absurdity and non-logical thinking -- take a logic 101 course. Atheists pride themselves on being logical, do you expect a theoretical God to be less intelligent than you.
Why must god be logical?

BTW: DOC you have such amazing powers. You have in essence limited your god's powers. You are more powerful than your god.

[DOC]

What irrelevant red herring.

Answer the question.
Does your sad version of god have to follow the rules that it created?
yes or no.

No, He doesn't unless He chooses to. And I have a feeling after reading the orderly 10 commandments and the command to love your neighbor as yourself, God chooses not to exist in an absurdity.

[DOC]

Why must god be logical?

BTW: DOC you have such amazing powers. You have in essence limited your god's powers. You are more powerful than your god.

You appear to be arguing for argument's sake rather than trying to reach some rational conclusion. That's a never ending game.

[wollery]

This is the old God can't make a weight so heavy he can't lift it. It's an absurdity and non-logical thinking -- take a logic 101 course. Atheists pride themselves on being logical, do you expect a theoretical God to be less intelligent than you.I think you should take one. If you define god as omnipotent then, by the definition of omnipotent, it means he can do anything, which must, logically, including things that are logical absurdities.

If he can't perform logical absurdities then the only logical conclusion is that he isn't omnipotent.

[paximperium]

You appear to be arguing for argument's sake rather than trying to reach some rational conclusion. That's a never ending game.
Nope. I'm reducing your argument down to the absurdity which it already is. Your god is either omnipotent or not and if it is omnipotent, it is an absurd contradiction by itself.

You are essentially weaseling out of defining your god. You are doing nothing more than cowardly playing semantic games to avoid the absurdity that is your god.