The american version of the trailer, a little bit different.
And most of the links I put on here come from here.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi Kevin, I read the debate between Andrew and Sam. Whew, it was long. At first I thought it was going to be each of them defending their reasons for believing what they believe or don't believe. But actually, it was Andrew trying to 'prove' his faith. I'm proud of him for putting himself out there like that. We can't 'prove' God exists and created the universe. In the same way scientists can't 'prove' their theory on how the world began. (although, evolution is taught as fact in schools, even though it is a theory that requires faith.) The salvation of God does not stand on human logic. I don't try to 'convert' anyone. Especially someone who has made the decision not to believe. God is the One who saves. Belief must be the will to believe. There must be a surrender of the will. The hindrance is that we won't trust God, we want to rely on our mental understanding. At first our relationship to God is a personal one, not an intellectual one. But, after that initial step of faith, all of scripture begins to make sense and we begin to have Godly wisdom. God created us to believe in Him. He has so many things to tell us and show us. I am disappointed Andrew didn't point out areas in Scripture that have been proven by science. I'm also disappointed he didn't ask Sam more questions on why he believes what he believes.
So anyway, do you see why it was a fruitless exchange between Sam and Andrew? Sam wanted concrete evidence. What did you think about the exchange and what was your purpose for posting it? Julie
Hi Julie, thanks for reading it and responding. Let me first say that I think Sam in fact addressed most of the things you put forth.
Regarding the idea that both Christianity and science require faith, Sam said this, "Your excursus into philosophical skepticism was also unnecessary-the "puddle-jumps of faith" that lie at the foundation of our reason are not a problem for atheism. This is not the sort of faith I've been criticizing. The fact that the underpinnings of our knowledge are in some sense inscrutable (and may remain so), the fact that Hume's worries make sense, the fact that Wittgenstein can say things like "our spade is turned," does not place every spurious claim to knowledge on an equal footing with science. The discomfort induced in mathematics by Godel does not make the doctrine of Mormonism even slightly more plausible. There is still a difference between jumping a puddle and walking on water." The idea that both science and religion, to some degree, require faith, doesn't make them equally likely.
Let me just add that, in fact, it is not the atheist's job to "Prove" their position (evolution is a different matter). The burden of proof is entirely on the religious. As you said, "Sam wanted concrete evidence." The assertion that this universe exists, as does a God, is not an equally likely alternative to the atheist saying that this world doesn't have any supernatural element. The person making the claim - ADDING something (God) to the world - must have positive evidence for their position. Anything element you add makes the whole equation statistically less unlikely, and therefore must be justified. You can't just say "We live in a world with elves and fairies that are invisible." Then say to the person that disagrees, "Prove that we don't live in that kind of world!" It is almost impossible to DISprove something 100%. But, while the old saying: "The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence," is true, it should be reiterated, "The absence of evidence, also isn't evidence." We need positive evidence for what we believe, not just the inability of someone else to disprove our position. See Betrand Russell's celestial teapot example for this. Just to address your second paragraph, "The salvation of God does not stand on human logic." and, "The hindrance is that we won't trust God, we want to rely on our mental understanding." My questions would be, if it doesn't stand on human logic, and if you can't rely on mental understanding...what can you rely on? Gut feeling? Would you want the architect of your house relying on that? Whatever may be coming from a god is still reacting with the neurons in your gray matter. If what you're doing when you hear God's call, or "surrender your will," is not based on human logic, how can you possibly understand it? How can you you know you're doing it in an acceptable way, or even doing it at all? And if it is possible to connect with a deity, and if your spiritual walk consists of faith, not sight, how can you distinguish between the God of the Jews or Zeus or Osiris? In short, if you've forsaken human logic on this journey, what can you possively have to check the interpretations inside your own brain. The devil is the father of lies after all.
I do see why it was a fruitless exchange, but I think it was well demonstrated by Andrew in his numerous concessions that it was fruitless because Andrew was determined to continue to believe what he believes despite any possible argument. Any exchange becomes fruitless when this is the case. If I'm determined to believe there are fairies...no matter what you say, you can't change my mind. Does that actually mean there are faries? I'm sure you'd agree the only exist in my mind. As Sam said, "You simply wrote to inform me that you have never doubted God's existence, cannot account for how you came to believe in Him, and are well aware that these facts will not (and should not) persuade me of the legitimacy of your religious beliefs. I now feel like a tennis player, in mid-serve, who notices that his opponent is no longer holding a racket." Should others be convinced by these things? Should you? But it's the nature of faith, which, I think, is where the real issue lies a lot of the time - the confusion of truth and belief. It's not the first time someone will put their blinders on in the face of logic, and it won't be the last. Kevin
I didn't read the piece that Julie read, but just based on your comments, I would say that our faith is only as strong as the object of our faith. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, loving, perfect God who loves us no matter what we are and do is quite a strong object...as opposed to a fairie or pixie.
I think you're chasing a red herrin mother. I had no argument about the strength of your individual faith. How does the strength of your faith have anything to do with the truth of what you're saying you believe in? Whether I'm saying I believe in an all powerful pixie or a garden-variety pixie, my big idea of them doesn't make their reality any more probable.
Regarding your comment Julie, I guess my question would be, if the first step has to be made without logic - essentially, without a good REASON to do so (since what is faith but permission to believe something when we cease to have reasons for it?), then how do you determine what God you make a leap of faith to? If you're just gonna start believing in something, without a good reason any particular way, how do you choose?
It's like falling in love Kevin... its different for everyone you know? So your belief in your love is your own... You can't prove your love is real... but through experience and emotion and thought and all things personal and internal can you believe in your love for someone or their love for you... God's love is real to me because he has MADE it real to me through all those things... The reality of God's love is personal to me, to each of us and my experiences and reasons are mine and not yours and therefore don't make sense to you... of course.
That doesn't make it false or improbable... you just don't get understand it and it's frustrating I know...
I cannot prove that God exists to you... no one can... It is not within my power and although one day I hope that you do find the reality of God boundless and miraculous love, you won't until you do... not until God reveals Himself to you... and no amount of discussion or my explaining etc etc will make you believe... I don't believe in pixies or fairies because I haven't been shown anything that makes them real... But I have been shown things that prove to me God exists... that is what makes my belief strong.
Hi Kevin, Ok, this is how is was for me. I was raised in a home without any religion at all. When I was a junior in high school my dad became a Jehovahs Witness(my parents divorced when I was a year old) He wanted me to go to J.W. meetings with him, so I did for a while. I kept all the information with me, what they taught in the meetings and the books and literature. I moved away and went to school, got married,and had kids. It was always on my mind to search out different religions. Which one was true? I became knowledgable on J.W., Mormons, evolution,Christianity and New Age. I don't think you want to hear about the differences. You asked me how I decided. That's how. I searched it out. I was in my 30's when I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. Christianity made the most sense to me. But, I still had to make a conscious decision to trust in the God of the Bible. I remember thinking so much about it and then deciding to believe it to be true, without knowing for sure. It sounds silly I know, but not believing in God didn't make sense to me. It was an act of faith. The Bible makes so much sense to me now. God doesn't reveal anything to us until we have His Spirit living inside us. I understand all your questions because I had the same ones, but my purpose was to learn. What is your purpose? I hope this wasn't too long. Julie Oops, I still didn't answer all your questions. You want to know why a person would believe, especially if there is not any good evidence. I had a drive within me to search it out. I think that came from God. I was raised without any knowledge of God so He put it in my heart to search Him out. (I probably took longer than necessary) It is a Spiritual thing. By the way, science and the bible really do have a lot in common. Goodbye again, Julie
9 comments:
Hi Kevin, I read the debate between Andrew and Sam. Whew, it was long. At first I thought it was going to be each of them defending their reasons for believing what they believe or don't believe. But actually, it was Andrew trying to 'prove' his faith. I'm proud of him for putting himself out there like that. We can't 'prove' God exists and created the universe. In the same way scientists can't 'prove' their theory on how the world began. (although, evolution is taught as fact in schools, even though it is a theory that requires faith.) The salvation of God does not stand on human logic.
I don't try to 'convert' anyone. Especially someone who has made the decision not to believe. God is the One who saves. Belief must be the will to believe. There must be a surrender of the will. The hindrance is that we won't trust God, we want to rely on our mental understanding. At first our relationship to God is a personal one, not an intellectual one. But, after that initial step of faith, all of scripture begins to make sense and we begin to have Godly wisdom. God created us to believe in Him. He has so many things to tell us and show us. I am disappointed Andrew didn't point out areas in Scripture that have been proven by science. I'm also disappointed he didn't ask Sam more questions on why he believes what he believes.
So anyway, do you see why it was a fruitless exchange between Sam and Andrew? Sam wanted concrete evidence.
What did you think about the exchange and what was your purpose for posting it?
Julie
Hi Julie, thanks for reading it and responding. Let me first say that I think Sam in fact addressed most of the things you put forth.
Regarding the idea that both Christianity and science require faith, Sam said this, "Your excursus into philosophical skepticism was also unnecessary-the "puddle-jumps of faith" that lie at the foundation of our reason are not a problem for atheism. This is not the sort of faith I've been criticizing. The fact that the underpinnings of our knowledge are in some sense inscrutable (and may remain so), the fact that Hume's worries make sense, the fact that Wittgenstein can say things like "our spade is turned," does not place every spurious claim to knowledge on an equal footing with science. The discomfort induced in mathematics by Godel does not make the doctrine of Mormonism even slightly more plausible. There is still a difference between jumping a puddle and walking on water." The idea that both science and religion, to some degree, require faith, doesn't make them equally likely.
Let me just add that, in fact, it is not the atheist's job to "Prove" their position (evolution is a different matter). The burden of proof is entirely on the religious. As you said, "Sam wanted concrete evidence." The assertion that this universe exists, as does a God, is not an equally likely alternative to the atheist saying that this world doesn't have any supernatural element. The person making the claim - ADDING something (God) to the world - must have positive evidence for their position. Anything element you add makes the whole equation statistically less unlikely, and therefore must be justified. You can't just say "We live in a world with elves and fairies that are invisible." Then say to the person that disagrees, "Prove that we don't live in that kind of world!" It is almost impossible to DISprove something 100%. But, while the old saying: "The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence," is true, it should be reiterated, "The absence of evidence, also isn't evidence." We need positive evidence for what we believe, not just the inability of someone else to disprove our position. See Betrand Russell's celestial teapot example for this.
Just to address your second paragraph, "The salvation of God does not stand on human logic." and, "The hindrance is that we won't trust God, we want to rely on our mental understanding." My questions would be, if it doesn't stand on human logic, and if you can't rely on mental understanding...what can you rely on? Gut feeling? Would you want the architect of your house relying on that? Whatever may be coming from a god is still reacting with the neurons in your gray matter. If what you're doing when you hear God's call, or "surrender your will," is not based on human logic, how can you possibly understand it? How can you you know you're doing it in an acceptable way, or even doing it at all? And if it is possible to connect with a deity, and if your spiritual walk consists of faith, not sight, how can you distinguish between the God of the Jews or Zeus or Osiris? In short, if you've forsaken human logic on this journey, what can you possively have to check the interpretations inside your own brain. The devil is the father of lies after all.
I do see why it was a fruitless exchange, but I think it was well demonstrated by Andrew in his numerous concessions that it was fruitless because Andrew was determined to continue to believe what he believes despite any possible argument. Any exchange becomes fruitless when this is the case. If I'm determined to believe there are fairies...no matter what you say, you can't change my mind. Does that actually mean there are faries? I'm sure you'd agree the only exist in my mind. As Sam said, "You simply wrote to inform me that you have never doubted God's existence, cannot account for how you came to believe in Him, and are well aware that these facts will not (and should not) persuade me of the legitimacy of your religious beliefs. I now feel like a tennis player, in mid-serve, who notices that his opponent is no longer holding a racket." Should others be convinced by these things? Should you? But it's the nature of faith, which, I think, is where the real issue lies a lot of the time - the confusion of truth and belief. It's not the first time someone will put their blinders on in the face of logic, and it won't be the last.
Kevin
I like this trailer better
Hi Kevin,
The initial step is always faith and then the logic comes. The Bible is full of wisdom and logic.
Julie
I didn't read the piece that Julie read, but just based on your comments, I would say that our faith is only as strong as the object of our faith. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, loving, perfect God who loves us no matter what we are and do is quite a strong object...as opposed to a fairie or pixie.
AMEN Nancy!
I think you're chasing a red herrin mother. I had no argument about the strength of your individual faith. How does the strength of your faith have anything to do with the truth of what you're saying you believe in? Whether I'm saying I believe in an all powerful pixie or a garden-variety pixie, my big idea of them doesn't make their reality any more probable.
Regarding your comment Julie, I guess my question would be, if the first step has to be made without logic - essentially, without a good REASON to do so (since what is faith but permission to believe something when we cease to have reasons for it?), then how do you determine what God you make a leap of faith to? If you're just gonna start believing in something, without a good reason any particular way, how do you choose?
It's like falling in love Kevin... its different for everyone you know? So your belief in your love is your own... You can't prove your love is real... but through experience and emotion and thought and all things personal and internal can you believe in your love for someone or their love for you... God's love is real to me because he has MADE it real to me through all those things... The reality of God's love is personal to me, to each of us and my experiences and reasons are mine and not yours and therefore don't make sense to you... of course.
That doesn't make it false or improbable... you just don't get understand it and it's frustrating I know...
I cannot prove that God exists to you... no one can... It is not within my power and although one day I hope that you do find the reality of God boundless and miraculous love, you won't until you do... not until God reveals Himself to you... and no amount of discussion or my explaining etc etc will make you believe... I don't believe in pixies or fairies because I haven't been shown anything that makes them real... But I have been shown things that prove to me God exists... that is what makes my belief strong.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here...
Hi Kevin,
Ok, this is how is was for me. I was raised in a home without any religion at all. When I was a junior in high school my dad became a Jehovahs Witness(my parents divorced when I was a year old) He wanted me to go to J.W. meetings with him, so I did for a while. I kept all the information with me, what they taught in the meetings and the books and literature. I moved away and went to school, got married,and had kids. It was always on my mind to search out different religions. Which one was true? I became knowledgable on J.W., Mormons, evolution,Christianity and New Age. I don't think you want to hear about the differences. You asked me how I decided. That's how. I searched it out. I was in my 30's when I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. Christianity made the most sense to me. But, I still had to make a conscious decision to trust in the God of the Bible. I remember thinking so much about it and then deciding to believe it to be true, without knowing for sure. It sounds silly I know, but not believing in God didn't make sense to me. It was an act of faith. The Bible makes so much sense to me now. God doesn't reveal anything to us until we have His Spirit living inside us. I understand all your questions because I had the same ones, but my purpose was to learn. What is your purpose?
I hope this wasn't too long.
Julie
Oops, I still didn't answer all your questions. You want to know why a person would believe, especially if there is not any good evidence. I had a drive within me to search it out. I think that came from God. I was raised without any knowledge of God so He put it in my heart to search Him out. (I probably took longer than necessary) It is a Spiritual thing.
By the way, science and the bible really do have a lot in common.
Goodbye again,
Julie
Post a Comment