Why I believe in Christ

[Shadow Wolf]

Because God created man with a free-will

What cones after entirely depends on demonstrating the existence of free will. It really hasnt been. And that says nothing of the Christians who reject the idea of free will because god is allegedly omniscient. Which means like a script author, god knows whats going to happen because hes ready written the ending.

 

[mmarco]

What cones after entirely depends on demonstrating the existence of free will. It really hasnt been.

First of all, faith is not based on prooves because faith is not a mathematical theorem.
Anyway, the fact that I have a free will is for me so evident that I need no prooves for that; I can freely decide to go or not to go to the movies tonight as well as I can freely decide to be a faithful husband or not, etc.

And that says nothing of the Christians who reject the idea of free will because god is allegedly omniscient. Which means like a script author, god knows whats going to happen because hes ready written the ending.

I am catholic and catholics believe in free will.
God is out of time, and therefore He alredy knows past, present and future; this does not mean that we have not a free will.
Since i am a physicist and I am familiar with the relative concept of time and space of the theory of relativity, it is very natural for me to understand the idea of existence "out of time".
According to the theory of relativity, time flows differently for different observators; we can say that time is one of our limits. We are immersed in time and we cannot understand what existence out-of-time is, but we can understand that such perspective exists, since it is somehow predicticted by the laws of physics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First of all, faith is not based on prooves because faith is not a mathematical theorem.

I said demonstrate. I said nothing of proofs as math is the only source of proofs.

Anyway, the fact that I have a free will is for me so evident that I need no prooves for that

You've made the claim free will exist. You have noy provided evidence of its existence.

God is out of time, and therefore He alredy knows past, present and future; this does not mean that we have not a free will.

If he knows the future we cannot have free will as god knows what we will do in the future.

Since i am a physicist

What university? What area? Any publications?
(I have my doubts with your confusion of demonstrate with proof)

According to the theory of relativity, time flows differently for different observators; we can say that time is one of our limits. We are immersed in time and we cannot understand what existence out-of-time is, but we can understand that such perspective exists, since it is somehow predicticted by the laws of physics.

There is no outside of time. Relativity also asserts time and space are one in the same, not separate things.

 

[mmarco]

If he knows the future we cannot have free will as god knows what we will do in the future.

You are wrong; the fact that God knows what we will do in the future does not mean that we do not have free will. It is a typical mistake, but actually, your conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

What university? What area? Any publications?
(I have my doubts with your confusion of demonstrate with proof)

You are free not to believe me; I do not know what difference you see between demonstrate and proof because there is no difference in italian, and according to my english dictionary, they are synonimous also in english.

There is no outside of time. Relativity also asserts time and space are one in the same, not separate things.

You are wrong; the theory of relativity says much more than that; for example, at the speed of light, time does no longer exist, and by the way, the Bible uses the light as an allegorical figure for God.

 

[mmarco]

There is no outside of time. Relativity also asserts time and space are one in the same, not separate things.

If you are interested in understanding better the concept of time in the theory of relativity, I can suggest you the following divulgative documentary from the BBC,
It is rather long, but it is sufficient to watch it from minute 16 to minute 26.

 

[Mitty]

You are wrong; the fact that God knows what we will do in the future does not mean that we do not have free will. It is a typical mistake, but actually, your conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

Did your particular god actually tell you the "fact" that it knows what we will do in the future, or did you just make that "fact" up, given that Abraham's particular god was obviously neither an omniscient or omnipresent type of god and didn't even know what was happening in the present, let alone the future (Gen 18)?

And if your god already knows what we will do in the future, why doesn't it drop by and discuss it if it is unhappy, like Abraham's and Cain(an)'s gods did?

You know it makes sense!!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are wrong; the fact that God knows what we will do in the future does not mean that we do not have free will.

If god knows what we are going tondo we can't do anything other than what he knows we will do. Since he onows what we will do before we do it, we have to do that, and thus have no will at all. To have free we have to able to act against whaylt god knows will happen. But then that means he doesn't know whats going to happen and is thus not omniscient.

You are free not to believe me; I do not know what difference you see between demonstrate and proof because there is no difference in italian, and according to my english dictionary, they are synonimous also in english.

If you dont see it then obviously you aren't a scientist.

You are wrong; the theory of relativity says much more than that; for example, at the speed of light, time does no longer exist

Time does exist. It is a part of space. Relativity establishes they are. What relativity does establish is that the passage of time is relative to location. Such as, time travels by more slowly in space due to the differences in gravity, necessitating that satellites be adjusted to account for this. Hypothetical time travel is based on orbiting the event horizon of a black hole, slowing time for the passanger that only a couple years will pass while those still on Eart, with Earth time will, will have lived out a couple decades.

 

[mmarco]

If god knows what we are going tondo we can't do anything other than what he knows we will do.

I disagree; if God knows that a person will make the choice A instead of the choice B, this does not mean that such person cannot make the choice B, but only that such person will freely make the choice A.
If I know a person very well (say John) , and I know that John is a very mild-manner person, I can predict that he will not have a violent reaction and kill someone (say George) only because George has offended him.
This does not mean that John does not have a free will; John could freely choose to kill George, but he will not.

If you dont see it then obviously you aren't a scientist.

The point is that I am a physicist, and my english dictionary supports my view.
Why don't you explain what difference you see between the words demonstration and proof?

Time does exist. It is a part of space. Relativity establishes they are. What relativity does establish is that the passage of time is relative to location. Such as, time travels by more slowly in space due to the differences in gravity, necessitating that satellites be adjusted to account for this. Hypothetical time travel is based on orbiting the event horizon of a black hole, slowing time for the passanger that only a couple years will pass while those still on Eart, with Earth time will, will have lived out a couple decades.

You know too little about the theory of relativity; in fact, according to the theory of relativity , also the concept of past, present and future is relative , and the chronological order of events may be inverted for different observators.
However, I do not think this is the place to keep a course on the theory of relativity, so I'll stop here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree; if God knows that a person will make the choice A instead of the choice B, this does not mean that such person cannot make the choice B, but only that such person will freely make the choice A.

But if its known thats how it will be that is not free will but determinist.

If I know a person very well (say John) , and I know that John is a very mild-manner person, I can predict that he will not have a violent reaction and kill someone (say George) only because George has offended him.
This does not mean that John does not have a free will; John could freely choose to kill George, but he will not.

You arent an omniscient being who does know what will happen.

The point is that I am a physicist, and my english dictionary supports my view.
Why don't you explain what difference you see between the words demonstration and proof?

You arent a scientist if you dont know the basic differences between things like proves, suggests, indicates, and demonstrates. One is math. The others science. Its like the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
And you keep getting this wrong and want to tell me I don't understand when relativity when all your doing is just addimg ramblings to make it look like I don't?

 

[mmarco]

But if its known thats how it will be that is not free will but determinist.

I disagree; God simply knows what we freely will choose; this is not determinism.

You arent a scientist if you dont know the basic differences between things like proves, suggests, indicates, and demonstrates. One is math. The others science. Its like the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

You are inventing meaning for words which do not correspond to the dictionary; I am a phycist and I know what science is much better than you.

I understand that you are not interested in having a serious and honest dialogue, so I'll stop here.

Best regards.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are inventing meaning for words

Nope. Check it. Science doesn't prove anything.

 

[mmarco]

Nope. Check it. Science doesn't prove anything.

I totally agree, science doesn't prove nor demonstrate anything (prove and demonstrate are synonimous). I never said that science proves something. Science provides information about the universe; we can rationally analyse these informations and develop a global view coherent with our scientific knowledges.
However, we were talking about religion, and religion is neither mathematics nor science; religion does not require a proof/demonstration for everything.
My religious believes are coherent with our scientific knowledges, but certainly religion refers to a different scope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fundamental reason why I believe in Jesus Christ, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God. I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and mercifull and that God is near to us so that we may open our heart to Him, be in communion with Him and be saved.

So in other words: you believe it because you like it; because it sounds nice.


Do you think that is sufficient reason, or a rationally justified reason, to accept something as true and accurate?


Also, it seems to me that you are ignoring quite a big portion of the bible... you know... the parts where this god is anything but "loving" and instead all about being vindictive, vengefull, jealous, intolerant, barbaric, homophobic and just plain immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and one directed to those who believe in other religions, which is "Why do you not believe in Chirst?"

I believe in no religions. And the reason for why I don't believe one particular religion, applies pretty much to all the others as well. And that reason is twofold:
- it is based in superstition
- there is zero verifiable evidence

What I feel about the core of the "message" of any particular religion, is not a factor at all either way.
I might like some ideas and I might despise others. Neither says anything about credibility or accuracy of the actual stories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the normative way offered but God saves whom He wishes, and He wills the salvation of all so paths to salvation may be somewhat different for others. I think if a person's heart is open to God and they're trying their best with the knowledge they have, and treat people as well as they can, God will take those things into account. God comes to reach us on our level when we need it and knows we're not perfect.

That's not what the bible says though.

 

[mmarco]

So in other words: you believe it because you like it; because it sounds nice.


Do you think that is sufficient reason, or a rationally justified reason, to accept something as true and accurate?


Also, it seems to me that you are ignoring quite a big portion of the bible... you know... the parts where this god is anything but "loving" and instead all about being vindictive, vengefull, jealous, intolerant, barbaric, homophobic and just plain immoral.

Religion is not mathematics nor science; it is based on faith and not on logical prooves or experimental data. I find totally convincing the christian concept of divine love and this represents the foundation of my faith.
I am a physicist, and my religious believes are absolutely coherent with our scientific knowledges; therefore, my faith has also solid rational grounds, but religion never reduces to a study of the physical realm and requires acts of faith.
The Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament; in the Old Testament we find an imperfect theology.

 

[Mitty]

Religion is not mathematics nor science; it is based on faith and not on logical prooves or experimental data. I find totally convincing the christian concept of divine love and this represents the foundation of my faith.
I am a physicist, and my religious believes are absolutely coherent with our scientific knowledges; therefore, my faith has also solid rational grounds, but religion never reduces to a study of the physical realm and requires acts of faith.
The Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament; in the Old Testament we find an imperfect theology.

Since the OT writers had imperfect theology when they wrote their imaginative stories, do you just cherry pick the bits of the bible which suit your lifestyle and ignore the bits which don't, including the scientific untruths in the bible? If so, which parts of the bible do you ignore?

 

[mmarco]

I believe in no religions. And the reason for why I don't believe one particular religion, applies pretty much to all the others as well. And that reason is twofold:
- it is based in superstition
- there is zero verifiable evidence

I disagree; actually I think that atheism is unreasonable
In fact, as a physicist, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong and convincent arguments supporting the existence of a personal intelligent God.
All what science shows about the universe is that it manifests itself to us as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God, conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.

 

[Mitty]

I disagree; actually I think that atheism is unreasonable
In fact, as a physicist, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong and convincent arguments supporting the existence of a personal intelligent God.
All what science shows about the universe is that it manifests itself to us as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God, conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.

Did your "personal god" create the universe, given the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old? And if so, why is biblical morality just man-made, including the ten commandments etc?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree; actually I think that atheism is unreasonable

Wich translates to "not believing supernatural claims on faith is unreasonable".
I can't wait to see how you defend such a position.

In fact, as a physicist, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong and convincent arguments supporting the existence of a personal intelligent God.
All what science shows about the universe is that it manifests itself to us as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it;

Mathematical models describe the universe. It's not a case of those models being the universe.
And the minds that conjure up these mathematical models, are humans.

therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of an intelligent God,

conceiving if as a mathematrical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of an intelligent and conscious God, i.e. a personal God.​

​

Doesn't follow.
GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

Your premise is flawed. The math describes the universe. The math "is" not the universe.