>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


what lukinstone is referring to is that many of the original founders were deists and is not contended by historians.many writings of jefferson in particular... to be specific.

your final point is so chock full of WTF i wouldnt even know where to begin but i do heartily agree that santorum has the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe and also has the right to base those beliefs on his religious inclinations
BUT....
i have a serious problem with those who identify with being a conservative, who chant the mantra of freedom and liberty and who then turn around and find it totally acceptable to legislate MY freedom and MY liberty simply based on their religious convictions.

that, my friend..is the epitome of hypocrisy.

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?

Who was their God?

And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?

Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.

If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

>> ^lantern53:

The mention of God is all over the writings of the founding fathers, so...
if you have a problem with that you're simply not understanding.
The founding fathers were interested in prohibiting gov't from establishing a state religion, as they did in England.
They wanted to keep the gov't out of religion. They did not want the gov't sponsoring or imposing a religion as that would be a restriction on freedom.
What Santorum said here was that people of faith should be able to influence public policy, which is another way of saying that we have freedom of religion.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand this? Why take a soundbite and interpret it in such a way that the meaning is turned totally backwards?


I think you are missing Santorum's point, as he is missing the point of the Establishment clause.

You are correct in so far as what the founding fathers intended with the separation of church and state. Where I think you are mistaken is Santorum's intent. He is interpreting valid criticism of religion's role in government as potential limitation of free speech.

It's a matter of degrees. He can say he believes in god and thinks we should all follow god's teachings until the cows come home (or until Jesus returns, whatever). But, when he states, as an elected official, that government should create and enforce policy based on specific religious ideas, that's where he's wrong. And, I don't think I'm stretching too much when I say this is a common Republican (at least during campaign season) tactic. Look at how they are running to the far right with the contraception/healthcare issue. This time around, Santorum is the most outspokenly religious of the bunch.

Santorum has said "sex is supposed to be within marriage."
He has stated that his views on why homosexual marriage are informed by the bible.

Like it or not, not many Americans can justify a pro-life stance, anti-homosexual policy or even war in the middle east without invoking the Christian god. Politicians still do it and are successful but that doesn't mean it's how our government is supposed to run.

Oh, and a side point on the founders' god. It's a generic god, a deist god, not necessarily Christian. While some may have been what we consider "normal" Christians, in the Constitution they invoked god in such a way that it wasn't connected to any one dogma. I think if you understand the intent of the Establishment clause, that's the only way those references make sense.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all
non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there
is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

No, I will state unequivocally that Jesus is God, and that anyone else claiming to be a god is a pretender to the throne.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in
space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of
evidence for both.

I'm looking at the same evidence you are. The difference is in the presuppositions of your worldview. If you took off those glasses then you might start to see what I am talking about. For instance, the Uniformity in nature, how do you explain it?

There is no appearance of design in biological
systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100
years or so)

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

There certainty is the appearance of the design, and these systems were in fact designed, but you say it is simply chance that created these sophisticated and irreducibly complex systems. I say something irreducibly complex cannot have been evolved.

, and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily
explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary.

They are not easily explained away. It is virtually a mathematical impossibility for the laws to be tuned the way they are. Check this out:



(Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we
would never know it existed

If I stood in front of a firing squad of 100 highly trained marksmen and survived the execution without a scratch, I should not be shocked to find out they missed, since if they hadn't, I wouldn't be alive to know that they did. In the same manner, while we shouldn't be shocked we are alive in a life permitting Universe, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't be surprised the Universe in which we find ourselves is life permitting.

, we do not know how many universes exist,
have existed, or can exist, etc.

If there are multiple universes, it just makes the fine tuning problem worse. The fine tuning on the mechanism for the multiple Universe generator would be infinitely more improbable.

If you want to maintain a god of the
gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery
ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

It isn't the God of the gaps when God is the superior explantion for the evidence, such as the information in DNA.

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable.
The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since
you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It
cannot be measured

Is believing in the existence of the external world falsifiable? Is the idea that the Universe began 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false falsifiable? Is the fact that you cannot falsify either of those ideas make your existence meaningless?

The non-existence of God certainly is falsifiable; He could show up, as in the second coming. God cannot be measured by emprical methodology because God is a Spirit. This doesn't prove He doesn't exist. I notice you didn't answer my question, which is basic..you say you have an open mind, so I ask, if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

>> ^botono9

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of evidence for both. There is no appearance of design in biological systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100 years or so), and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary. (Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we would never know it existed, we do not know how many universes exist, have existed, or can exist, etc. If you want to maintain a god of the gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable. The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It cannot be measured


>> ^shinyblurry:
So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

I am an atheist, but I am not blind to evidence and so my position is capable of change.

It's only fallacious if I'm actually making an argument, which I wasn't. Just personal comments on the man's work.

I didn't go into specifics simply because of time, but if you like, I can give you a brief rundown of what I find objectionable about his work.

The KCA: Craig seems to think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a very strong argument for theism, but it has numerous weaknesses. Craig argues for the impossibility of an actual infinite, whether in terms of a series in time, or of an infinitude of physical objects. His arguments in this regard are spectacularly weak. He believes, for instance, that the Hilbert's Hotel paradox shows that an actual infinite is absurd. This is not what the paradox shows, however--it only shows that an actual infinite would behave in unintuitive ways, breaking apart properties of numbers that we normally find together. Moreover, Craig provides no good reason to think that the first cause would have to be personal. He assumes that only a person could cause something to come from nothing, but doesn't back this up with any sound arguments.

Religious Epistemology: Craig asserts that philosophical arguments are neither necessary nor sufficient to have justified belief and genuine knowledge of the truth of Christianity--the light of the Holy Spirit is enough. He says this of himself as well, and is thus committed to his belief in Christianity regardless of any arguments that might be presented. He thus declares himself impervious to any argument that might vitiate Christianity--this is a profound philosophical failing. To declare that no conceivable argument can convince you away from your position is to declare the entire philosophical enterprise almost entirely purposeless with regard to that question.

The Resurrection: Craig uses Bayesian probability theory to argue for the likelihood of the resurrection, claiming that when the calculation of prior probability includes a belief in the existence of God, then the resurrection will be probable--and thus, the rejection of the resurrection by atheists just comes down to a dogmatic rejection based on a previously held belief. Craig is not the first to make this argument; Richard Swinburne first advanced it in the 70's. It is, however, a very bad argument. It only works if the "God" in question is in particular a Christian God to begin with. Not just any God will do, or the resurrection of Jesus is hardly more likely than the epiphany of Krishna or the revelations to Mohammad. But the specifically Christian notion of God was developed only out of belief in the resurrection in the first place. Thus, Craig's argument is largely circular.

Jefferson wrote about a wall of separation, not a one way door. "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" means just that. Note that the government is not mentioned in that relationship. Further, the idea that homosexuals can't serve in the military has nothing at all to do with the Bible. Even if we accept that the Bible says that homosexual feelings or activity is a sin, there's no mention in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that sinners can't be in the military. If the military wishes to exclude all sinners, then according to many Christians no one could serve at all. But regardless of all that, the Bible is indistinguishable from fiction, and deserves to be treated as such.

As for whether or not the founding fathers were mostly deist, I do need to do more research. Some of your claims point to you being correct. Others aren't relevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?
This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.
Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?
These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:
king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments
The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.
The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"
our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
John Adams
the bible is the rock on which our republic rests
andrew jackson
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
Newsweek 12/27/82
>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?

This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.

Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?

These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:

king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments

The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.

The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

John Adams

the bible is the rock on which our republic rests

andrew jackson

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

Newsweek 12/27/82

>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?
>> ^shinyblurry:

You can live in denial that God has richly blessed this country, but it's undeniable that it has become quantifiably worse since we started turning our back on Him. America was founded on Christian principles, and if you want to tear out the foundation, the whole thing will going to collapse.
>> ^A10anis:
"And, as president, i will take America back to the dark ages where, once again, religion will supress freedom of thought, and dictate all aspects of our lives."

I think you failed to understand the comment. In any case, God isn't hiding Himself from you. The only thing that separates us from God is sin. If you're the type of person who prefers autonomy to sin over the truth, God may never bring you to repentance. That's your fault and no one elses. Also, you can't pick who you want God to be. God is who He is, perfect and Holy. Your dispute is that He doesn't tolerate sin. Though there are many false teachers and prophets who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. So if you want a God of your personal preference, you'll find one. And they all lead to the same place.

>> ^LiquidDrift:
Religious texts clearly state all kinds of crazy stuff. Fortunately for civilization, most of the really crazy ideas have faded or been re-interpreted so we (in the Western world anyway) no longer burn witches, beat women for menstruating in public, etc.
What kind of douche hides himself from all but a few people and then tortures anyone who doesn't believe he exists? Oh yeah, the christian god. If I'm going to follow a god, I'll pick one that isn't such an a hole.
>> ^shinyblurry:
What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

Religious texts clearly state all kinds of crazy stuff. Fortunately for civilization, most of the really crazy ideas have faded or been re-interpreted so we (in the Western world anyway) no longer burn witches, beat women for menstruating in public, etc.

What kind of douche hides himself from all but a few people and then tortures anyone who doesn't believe he exists? Oh yeah, the christian god. If I'm going to follow a god, I'll pick one that isn't such an a**hole.


>> ^shinyblurry:

What the bible clearly states is that God is the one who grants repentance which will lead to knowledge of the truth. Only He can change your heart and turn you from the sins that have overcome and ensnared you. God is the one who calls you out of rebellion against Him and gives you the gift of faith. So, what I can do is point you in the right direction, give you reasons I believe are sufficient, and relate my personal experience. I pray that God will use it, but only God can save you.

Q1). Is there design in the universe?
Yes.
Q2). The universe had a beginning! (infinite cannot exist.)
This is wrong.
Q3). Does evil exist objectively?
No.
Q4). If the christian god is real, what would you expect to see that you presently don't?
God.
Q5). Does proof of God interest you? Would it change you?
Not really. Yes.

Again, I understand from your perspective that it seems we can know nothing about God. However, it is not unreasonable to think that if there is a God, He is perfectly capable of revealing Himself to us. In fact, a Deist type God who doesn't get involved I would say is immoral.

Now you seem to think that, as per the popular argument, that the Christian God is simply a reflection of man. I can tell you that in answer to that, God did reveal Himself as a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Really, it comes down to the facts about Christianity. Was Jesus who He said He was? Is He risen? If He did and He is still alive, then everything He said was true. Although I have personal revelation, I think the evidence is very convincing. We could discuss that if you like.

>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
ok, you've avoided the question. I do admire your spunk tho.
if you follow the logical conclusion of the question, you will find that your conception of god that you have been worshiping is really a projection of the self.
the arrogance of an atheist who says that there is absolutely no god is equaled by the arrogance of religious folk who claim they "know" god.
And the truth is that we don't know shit about shit. let alone "know" god.
there might be some god stuff out there...we're barely touching into the collective intelligence of this planet. but to stick a human name and face on it and endow it with your own values is jerking off at its finest. It is a self-centered activity, and it's is crippling to non-self centered activity.
and thinking that some old mythology book has all the answers is a cop out, plain and simple.
good luck!

Well you're wrong on all counts. The theory of evolution is completely incompatible with scripture, and redemptive history.


I fully agree with shinyblurry here. When you combine Christian creationism and evolution in this way, it's not like you get the best of both worlds or something - you just get an inconsistent mess.

I mean, if you believe in the Christian God - if you've already accepted that - then why not go all the way and believe the Bible about how creation happened? And if you doubt, if you don't believe the Bible is true or that creation happened the way the Bible says (or whatever), then you need to re-inspect your overall beliefs because the Christian God doesn't accept half believers.

Shinyblurry's bible reference to being "lukewarm" (Revelations 3:16, I assume, is what he was hinting at) is very apropos: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." The Bible spends a lot of time here and elsewhere explaining that you can't have it both ways. Indeed, I think He's probably more lenient on people who don't believe at all (just my opinion).

I think the difference is that I doubt both the secular and the religious narratives. Though, one leaves room for doubt and change, the other is static.

I doubt both in completely different ways. I doubt the science, because doubt is part of science. You must be willing to change your view whenever new evidence provides a better narrative than what you had. If dating methods are inaccurate, that isn't proof or even evidence that any god exists. It's circumstantial information that follows your narrative. Like Neil said in the video...you don't throw out good ideas just because the measurement was somewhat off. If you don't have a better explanation, you keep trying to get better measurements for the explanation you have.

The problem with religious narratives is that they do not change, they only seek to disprove and explain away that which goes against the narrative. Science is the opposite. It's a narrative that constantly builds and adds on new ideas based on new observations and experiences. Science is a way of looking at the world which can exist on any world anywhere in the universe. Any species could come up with the scientific method without any outside influence or assistance from any sort of creator.

I can easily imagine a "god" of some sort which exists outside of the laws of our universe, entropy, time, etc. creating the universe and sparking the Big Bang with unimaginable powers. I can also imagine that this imaginary being is an infinite amount of possibilities other than the Christian God or the god of any other earthly religion.

I can also easily imagine there being a lot of other non-religious explanations for the creation of the universe. I doubt all of these explanations, but some are more likely than others, in my opinion, and none of the scientific ones demand I live my life based on one specific book and the story contained within. Science is limitless...religion lives only with limits.