Fiach

You are right. The Trinity was invented in the 2nd century and not made a compulsory belief until the Council of Nicaea in 324 AD. Constantine tipped the scales by insisting that the bishops vote for Athanasian Christianity. Prior to that there were as many as 10 Christianities. The most dominant one prior to this was Arian Chrsitianity which had the High God, and Jesus as the created God but no Trinity. Arians ruled Italy until 540 when the Byzantines conquered the Ostrogothic Arians and remposed Trinitarianism.

The trinity is not biblical nor Judaic. It is pagan. There was a Persian and an Egyptian trinity, and recently discoverd that the Celts had a Celtic Trinity as well.

Judaism and Islam both believe in the one God of Abraham, called either JHWH, I AM, or Allah.

My hypothesis is that Christianity is essentially an amalgamated Pagan Cult with some very tenuous Judaic roots, hence the Old Testament. That set of books mentions no Trinity, no Jesus, no God-human hybrids.

Fiach

theophilus

Based on your ending statement, I'll assume you don't consider yourself one of those "many people," and so I'll ask you to use critical thinking and rational analysis (even though you can't justify them as a standard vis a vis an atheist worldview where beliefs (including the belief in critical thinking,etc. are merely electro-chemical reactions in the brain and, therefore, can have no objective validity).

"Evolution is essentially an observed phenomenon, a fact." This is an fantastic (extraordinary) statement. As such, according to the standard applied here for theistic proofs, requires extraordinary substantiation. You should be able to cite numerous instances where you have "observed" this phenomenon.

Now, before the moderator or anyone else gets all hot about this post not belonging here, this is about evidences and the standard of proofs. I didn't raise the issue, so you certainly can't deny me the opportunity to respond. If science is to be the standard of "proof" for god, then it's devotees should be able to defend it.

Now, I'm going to qualify my request. Evolution is touted as the mechanism which explains the development of life from simple to complex organisms, i.e., swamp scum to man. However, whenever I challenge this idea, the response is merely "change over time, i.e., a germ mutates over time so it can no longer breed with the original type. Well, this will simply not do because there is a giant difference between a germ/insect/flower becoming a disctinct variety of germ/insect/flower and changing into something completely different.

So, what I'm expecting is an unambiguous example of "observed" (not infered) trans-species change.

All your citations of DNA, etc., beg the question; since DNA and the other mechanisms you cited are tremendously complex, as you admit, the fundamental question is "where did they come from to begin with." You can hardly claim that they "evolved" since that would require them being in place already and you are left in a hopeless circular argument. And that would be bad "critical thinking," wouldn't it?

Shadowy Man

No, this is not true. One can come up with a theory to explain the changes of biological entities over time without having to account for how the first one came into being. If I am to understand correctly, that would be abiogenesis not evolution.

For example, one can understand the lifecycle of stars without having a theory of from where the hydrogen came in the first place. Even the Big Bang theory only explains how the universe has changed over the last 14 billion years, not where it came from.

theophilus

Shadowy Man

You know.. I've heard people drag this one out before and I find it particularly offensive.

I have studied science for almost half of my life and if anything, it has given me a greater appreciation of the beauty of the universe.

People who are ignorant of science somehow think that science makes things mundane, and they believe that ignorance and mystery leads to poetry and beauty. But those people don't understand what science is saying, and are missing out so many beautiful symmetries, simplicities, and connections.

theophilus

You are wrong both historically and theologically.

The doctrine of the Trinity was not "invented." It was derived by "good and necessary consequence (inference) from what the Bible teaches about the persons of the Godhead regarding their nature and relationship to each other and the creation.

Cristology developed as the church tried to understand who Jesus was in terms of his true nature. It decided these things based on Scripture, not by inventing some other system.

RE other trinitarian systems, similarity is not identify (this is a logical fallacy, i.e., a failure of critical thinking). Christians do not believe in a trinity of "gods." We believe in one God in three persons. We also believe in the existence of Satan, who is the god of this world and the enemy of truth. He certainly knows the trinity and it is his historic method to substitute counterfeits of the truth.

My hypothesis is that your hypothesis is all wet. The doctrine of the trinity is latent in the Old Testament, e.g., "let US make man in OUR image;" "the SPIRIT of God was over the face of the deep;" God/Jehovah repeatedly refers to himself as Savior and yet Isaiah makes it clear that the Messiah, who is sent by God, will save the people from their sins.

Besides, as an advocate that all thinking is purely bilogical, your hypothesis is inherently meaningless as a statement. It is not even a hypothesis, since the whole idea of hypotheses, according to your belief, is just a function of these same electro/chemical reactions and cannot be be evaluated for truth or meaning. Basically, you have a hypothesis that there are such things as hypotheses, but this is hopelessly circular, isn't it.

theophilus

Well, since I don't know where you're coming from with this, I can't respond directly to it.

However, I'll ask a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

You "find" this particularly "offensive." What is the nature of "finding?" Is this a visceral response? Is is "offensive" because it contradicts your belief system?

If it is visceral, then why should I care if it offends you. I have a visceral response to the idea of eating snails but do not, thereby, find it "offensive" that the French eat them.

If it conflicts with your belief system, why should I care about your belief system? What is it based on? Is your belief system to be standard for all opinions?

You use the words "beauty" and "beautiful" to describe qualities of nature. These are both subjective statements. Are you suggesting that there is something objectively beautiful in the created order? This is certainly not possible from a materialsitic perspective - life "just is;" it is neither beautiful or ugly. Any "feelings" are just the accumulation of years of adaptation and survival mechanisms. They are inherently meaningless.

If this is your worldview, then you attribute to science things it cannot possibly provide.

It is just the fact that scientists pursue science for its own sake that proves that they really operate (unacknowledged) on a theistic worldview which makes all your statements meaningful.

Based on an atheistic worldview, there is neither beauty or truth.

theophilus

Well, if that were the extent of the argument, i.e., how things have changed since the "came into being," then that is it's own question.

But since this thread is about "evidence of God," and the standard of "proof" is held out to be science, the question of "where" things came from, including the basic buildingblocks of life, must be dealt with.

Evolution is posited as a reason for not believing in God; the Bible "contradicts" evolution; God is not necessary to explain basic issues of existence.

Someone may have a theory about the lifecycle of stars without knowing where the hydrogen came from but the cannot say anything meaningful about the "existence" of stars because that requires knowing where the hydrogen came from.

theophilus

Well, I don't know why other Christians "come here" but I come here to defend the gospel, i.e., to give a "reason" for my faith and to expose the futility and dishonesty of unbelief.

Ultimately, I come here because Christ is Lord and all thought must be "taken captive" to obedience to him.

BTW, how do you know why Christians come here? Have you taken a survey or is that just an assumption based on your view of why people do things?

Oxymoron

...and how beautifully you have done this. Not.

One thing stands out more than anything: theophilus is not a man at peace with himself and the world. The most likely reason for his presence here is this: his fear, subconscious or otherwise, that he is wrong drives him to justify himself. For if his arguments can stand up here, he has no need to fear. Unfortunately, his "rock solid" preassumption of God and The Word is anything BUT solid, and all the big words and badly understood science and dubious philosophy in the world will not be able to patch it. He really is on to a loser, I don't think even we can save him.