Christianity Can't Be True Because...

[Nihilist Virus]

People who throw that phrase around generally have no clue.  They tend to think that the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

BTW it's not 66 books.  Many Old Testament books were broken apart by Christians into several smaller books.  And it's not 40 authors, lol.  Where did you, or they, get that?

But hey I get your point.  Maybe not all of them were rapists.  Shall we agree to toss out the Torah since it clearly was written by racist rapist homicidal maniacs?

Where did I say they were?  They could be cupcake recipes or building blueprints, the common version of the bible would still be 66 written by 35-40 authors.  I have seen 40 most often.  Feel free to look it up and correct me.

Easy there Adolf, you might want to rethink your approach.

It's not 40 authors. More like 500. Forgeries and insertions were canonized.

[KevinM1]

I want to know:

1. If he can substantiate his cosmology with any evidence whatsoever
2. How this all-matter has anthropological traits and needs
3. Why it chose the ancient Middle East to reveal itself

A wall of pseudoscience isn't compelling in the least. Show your work.

[Ravenshire]

Why do I get the feeling that regardless of whether we fulfill the OP's pre-conceived notions, we'll never hear from him again.

[downbeatplumb]

Hi, I'm a Christian genuinely interested in athiest's views about God and/or Jesus. 

I'm taking a survey which I hope might generate some thoughtful discussion. 

How would you finish this sentence: "Christianity can't be true because..."

Answers I've heard before include:
-      Because there’s no such thing as truth.
-      Because the church has done horrible things.
-      Because the bible is anti-homosexuality.
-      Because the big bang disproves God.
-      Because evolution disproves the bible.
-      Because there’s no historical evidence for Jesus.
-      Because the bible has been changed over the years.

Can you think of any others? Please comment. Thanks!

Christianity can't be true primarily because it appeals to the supernatural and there is no such thing.
But honestly Christianity is a long way down the list of religions based on probability.
I rate both scientology and the old greek gods as more likely than Christianity.
Scientology is based on aliens and you never know there might be aliens.
And the old pantheon of gods is more likely because it has gods as a breeding species, which implies evolution is possible which is the only you can get complex life.
And I think both those ideas are stupid, But an improvement on the Abrahamic religions.

[Joods]

Why do I get the feeling that regardless of whether we fulfill the OP's pre-conceived notions, we'll never hear from him again.

Because he really wasn't all that interested in learning to begin with.

[brewer]

all christians suffer from liars paradox syndrome.

[Anomalocaris]

Hi, I'm a Christian genuinely interested in athiest's views about God and/or Jesus. 

I'm taking a survey which I hope might generate some thoughtful discussion. 

How would you finish this sentence: "Christianity can't be true because..."

Answers I've heard before include:
-      Because there’s no such thing as truth.
-      Because the church has done horrible things.
-      Because the bible is anti-homosexuality.
-      Because the big bang disproves God.
-      Because evolution disproves the bible.
-      Because there’s no historical evidence for Jesus.
-      Because the bible has been changed over the years.

Can you think of any others? Please comment. Thanks!

Because no self respecting God would have to fuck his own mother to give himself birth.

[Angrboda]

Because the idea of gods is absurd. There are no such things. They are the product of imagination and nothing more.

[Jesster]

Why do I get the feeling that regardless of whether we fulfill the OP's pre-conceived notions, we'll never hear from him again.

Because he really wasn't all that interested in learning to begin with.

Well yeah. He even said himself that he's just here for a survey. He's just going to take the results back to his Christian buddies elsewhere instead of engaging with us.

[LadyForCamus]

I believe I can answer that one with Newton's 3rd law.

And you have to begin with an infinite, substantial (actually there) God. A God that is absolute "there-ness" of matter (quark-gluon soup, no atomic space) that extends forever in all directions...there is no "outside", no outer membrane to define a form. It has no image because light cannot pass through it. This God is impossible to draw. This is the state of existence before the inflation of space-time, of a void space vacuum bubble (universe). The unified state of space, time, matter and forces. God in the Highest. Source. The Eternal One, etc.

This state of existence has 3 equal spatial relationships with it's own substance, namely: 1: What ever point you pick, there is real matter there and it's a center....every point is the center, it is at the center of itself at every where. 2: What ever point you pick, it is surrounded by matter equally in all directions forever as a spherical wave-form. 3: No point is at a higher or lower level of excitation so the entire thing rests as a field in equilibrium.

Now for the creation of a universe. We need a stable void space to open up in this infinite substance and the mechanism I've found is similar to sonic cavitation and crystal nucleation, but we don't need the "why" to answer the "how". There are many ways and shapes to imagine it opening but let's stick with the one inherent in the 2nd relationship - all around, and also represented by the Big Bang model: The Sphere.

So lets go right ahead and open up a sphere of void space in this infinite substance. How might it react? Can you just pull apart a void sphere, wipe your hands and say "tah dah! Universe!"? Or do you have to account for the equal and opposite reaction of real substance?

For the outward "yank" of the spherical space by the infinite substance...you need an inward pull From the perspective of the substance, it contracted to create the internal space. There is an opposing contraction of the substance to the center of the spherical space and the space of the universe is between these two features: A sphere of space inside a solid ocean (Fermi liquid) and a solid sphere at the center of that space. This also conforms to relationships 1 and 2, so what about the 3rd?

There is an equalizing reaction between the outer and inner sphere as a contracted field in equilibrium. This can be demonstrated in 2d with a square sheet of rubber: Take the sheet by the left and right sides and pull outwards, what are the total forces and affects on the rubber? Your outwards traction is opposed by an inwards contraction and if you let go it would fly toward and central point. The equalizing reaction happens in the substance of the rubber as the top and top of the once square sheet contract together toward a straight line vacating the vertical space formerly occupied by the rubber.

In the opening of the universe, this happens in radial 3d. All 3 structures are established simultaneously as space is vacated by the original infinite substance. All three are required for void space to remain open, stable and patterned. This 3 part "holon", as the vibrational container that is the universe, patterns directly for the anatomy and behavior of atoms. They are the micro-standing waveform of a macro container "particle".

The outer membrane of the finite sphere space is the border to the original Infinite. It is the Father God. The inner real point contraction is the Son. The individuated self expression of the Infinite Father. The field between that surrounds and interpenetrates all creation is the Holy Spirit.


From the perspective of the space created and the stuff of the universe within, God "hid" or "veiled" itself. Ever hear of "The Hidden God?"


The field also has a very specific geometry that predicts the structure of music and the organization of sub atomic particles.

What the ever-loving FUCK?!

Are you a certified arborist? Have you ever worked in an orchard?

Oh, so in THIS thread you feel justified in throwing around that authoritative "I'm a certified arborist, and you're not" hubris? Where was that earlier when I was making that exact comparison regarding others' professions? I thought it was just as easy as looking it up on YouTube? [emoji6]