Why I Believe In God

Gee, why do I believe in God? Heh, I don't think anyone's ever asked me that before.

The very core of what I believe is faith. I know that sounds like a cop-off, but a little less than a year ago, my belief in God was still based on logic, reasoning, and evidence. But then I realized, through the help of God, that my reasoning and understanding can only be as good as human. And if my logic and reasoning is only human, it can be crushed by another human's logic and reasoning. So that's not too much of a stable faith (You can easily be deceived). And so, the basis of why I believe in God is faith.

There are other things that help along the way though. Like true stories of angel sightings (and other phenomenon/miracles). I have books upon books of documented things like that. I also have literature on about 50 scientists on why they believe in Creation rather than evolution (who all have PHDs. Scientists ranging from BioChemistry, Physics, Zoology, etc. I could list all of the fields, but it'd take too long). The vast majority of these scientists are the top of their field, like being the head of the Military's Naval underwater propulsion division for example. It's just little things like that which help support the claims of faith. Comes to show that science isn't all it thinks it is and that it often times agrees with the claims of the Bible (which is a collection of books that were written by a number of authors over the course of thousands of years - yet they all tell the same story).

It's also not just knowledge, but having actually experienced God myself. It's... it's unlike any other thing I've ever known. To actually feel God's presense is enough to cause tears to stream down my face (and I very, very rarely cry). I suppose meeting your maker will do that to a guy. I haven't ever seen him physically, nor have I heard him audibally (to the extent of my knowledge). But God's much more than what my senses can comprehend. I believe because I know him. Just as surely as I know any other fact, I know that God exists. Something can't come from nothing. Nature can't simply invent itself and intelligently put itself together. It needs a creator to do that.

And so I believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Lord. The phenomenon of Jesus is one of the best proven facts in history once you really analyze it. Though even believing in Christ takes faith (Just as scientific "proof" takes faith to believe. You're believing the scientists have a full, flawless understanding of what they've come up with and that their proof is genuine). For me, God is simply undeniable.

I'd like to hear a few responses from you guys though. If there's anything that I might need to clarify, then hey, by all means, write me back.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Write Back Soon.

In Christ,
Brace



"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." --Colossians 2:8

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Dan,

Welcome to sciforums BTW.

So here are some points of view you might like to consider.

Do you realize that you are trying to use logic to determine whether to accept something on faith or reason? You are talking about faith as if it is something special or is somehow superior to reason. Faith is simply another way to make decisions, but in terms of its reliability and accuracy it is not the best method. Consider this list of methods for making decisions –

1. Flipping a coin, e.g. choose randomly.
2. Choose based on what feels comfortable.
3. Choose based on unproven hypotheses.
4. Choose based on proven evidence.

Reason requires making decisions based on proven facts, i.e. point 4 in the list. This provides definitive answers with 100% reliability, any other method is less reliable and can be significantly misleading. Reason reduces and usually eliminates human judgment and subjectivity. Faith on the other hand, typically point 2 above and perhaps 3, relies heavily on subjective opinions and creative imagination. If your logical reasoning is valid then it cannot be destroyed by an alleged counter argument. Once a truly logical conclusion has been determined then that represents truth. Each step of a logical argument will be based on proven facts. The only way that logic can appear to be incorrect is if any of the premises are false, but then the conclusion would not have been based on valid logic.

It sounds like you had already decided that a god exists and found that your desire could not be proven using logic and reason. You have erroneously assumed that you as a mere human must be correct and it must be the method of choosing that is invalid, i.e. reason. You have therefore dropped your standards to a less accurate and reliable method for making decisions and you have called this faith. This makes you feel more comfortable and hence you conclude that faith must be correct. Your reasoning is clearly flawed.

The use of logic is the highest discipline of human thought possible. Making decisions based on anything else will give rise to confusion, self deceit, self delusion, inaccuracies, and probably personal danger and disharmony.

The claims made by alleged experts mean very little if they have not based their research or conclusions on strict disciplines of reason. At this time there are no recorded proofs for the existence of any gods, angels, miracles, or other alleged supernatural phenomena. What you are claiming, as true stories are biased opinions or unproven hypotheses.

Well no. The conflicts and inconsistencies are endless. The gospels were indeed written by numerous unknown authors and most of these texts were based on the originals written by the Mark authors. And most of this seems to have been based on mythologies dating back many hundreds of years. And so far no one can point to any independent text that can prove or verify that the man Jesus actually existed. We have many texts showing evidence for the existence of many famous historical figures that existed before the Jesus period and of course after that period, but there remains no solid evidence that Jesus actually existed, and certainly no eyewitness accounts. There may well have been some form of inspirational leader of 2000 years ago that inspired some to create mythological texts but we cannot be sure.

Yes I too have experienced such emotions. The Titanic movie did that to many people. Becoming emotional over a concept is not new and may feel very real but it does not show that the concept has and sense of reality. You are simply allowing yourself to be self-deluded. Emotionalism is a powerful weapon used by most religions, it encourages people to ignore mental discipline and critical thinking.

All the evidence suggests that nature is the result of a very long and random process, a designer is not needed for that to occur.

Quite the reverse, it is highly unlikely that such a person ever existed. See the books: The Jesus Puzzle, The Christ Conspiracy, and others, I’ll give you a list if you wish. Even Paul in his letters never speaks of Jesus as if he was actually a man and never speaks of any of his alleged deeds claimed in the gospels. To Paul, the concept of Christ was a purely spiritual manifestation.

You don’t yet quite understand what is meant by faith or the scientific method. Faith simply means belief without proof. It is a severely limited mental approach to solving any useful problem, and is wholly inadequate for establishing truth or knowledge.

Cris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome, Dan

Dan--

Welcome to Sciforums. That's a pretty interesting perspective, though I wanted to check in with you on a few of the points.

I wanted to start here because it seemed like as good of place as any. There is a great library of logic, reasoning, and evidence (I personally use that term without its full authority here) that spans the two millennia of Christ's presence among humanity. Though some of our posters bear serious problems with Catholic theology, it is worth holding up here to demonstrate its critical faults regardless of its label. Specifically, the meticulous logical work of Christian philosophers in the Catholic vein is undermined by the host of a priori assumptions which defy the reasoned method the philosophers attempt to apply. Interpretive differences regarding the Bible were usually settled with political or military clout; thus, certain assumptions of God's nature are inaccurate--political compromises at best. (Consider Arius and Athanasius at Nicaea.)

Creation ex nihilo, the presence and role of the Devil in Christianity, and the Genesis tale of the fall of man bear serious implications against the state of modern faith. What is the Salvation? What is the Judgement? What is the Condemnation?

But to start with undemonstrable, unobservable assumptions--even the existence of God must be thrown into this lot in order to give fair consideration to the issues--destroys the credibility of the logical processes that come later; Christian theology might as well be mad-libbed.

Thus I understand well that the logic and reason of faith can be unsatisfactory; it is difficult to maintain a truth in the face of such overwhelming inconsistencies and doubt.

Faith, however, is designed to eliminate that inconsistency and doubt. It does so by asking the faithful to accept an idea without knowing what it means, and therefore the full dimension of its ramifications. Historically, Matthew 25 has been justification for mass murder: Christian charity during the atrocities of history has been based in the assumption of love and kindness, that it is better for the victim to be tortured, raped, and murdered than to be permitted to continue in their living "sin". This is a direct result of faith: the people who permitted and committed these atrocities against the human race dared not, for fear of salvation, question whether God's will was amiss; strangely, the logical consequence of this is that human perception of God's will is amiss, but that was largely unsatisfactory, as the faith that discourages discovery does not permit that discovery of the self: that one can be wrong in one's perception. (Parenthetical post-edit: I hereby defer the above to Cris; I have attempted to approach the effects whereas Cris has presented issues of method; his approach is much more coherent and effective.)

Here we come to another point:

I agree with that, and assert that this is the reason why it is important to find the integrity in one's own logic. To the other, whence comes your faith but from human institutions: churches, Bibles translated by the hands of men from records written by the hands of men. How much of what you believe of God is given you by humans?

And here I come to a very important point and question: Is it better to learn from the myriad perspectives of life, or to assume one perspective and call it right? To choose the latter is, essentially, to stop learning; this is the ultimate sacrifice of Catholic theology, the sacrifice of the intellect. And this is the central question I have about your explanation of the origin of your faith. You have chosen to believe something that cannot be demonstrated, which also alleges that it should not be demonstrated. This seems a simple escape from the ocean of confusing reality; it seems to be a withdrawal and a retreat. Perhaps you can give me some insight here: Why have you chosen to have faith only in that which you cannot and should not attempt to demonstrate? Why have you chosen to call fact that which you cannot observe as fact?

I ask only a simple question here: Does the documentation conclusively rule out other phenomena? Rather: are we speaking of angelic phenomenon, or phenomenon described as angelic? Did I see an extraterrestrial saucer or just a Ufo? Did I see an "act of God" or a cruel, angry man finally give himself a stroke from stress? Did I just see the world turn inside out, or is did someone drop LSD in my Snapple? I would stand apart from you here only on the grounds that of all the testimonial and other evidence, there's just too many possibilities in this Universe to simply label a phenomenon angelic in order to create the sense of comfort that I seek in God.

There's a couple of huge threads around here on this very subject; much has been argued and will be argued here at Sciforums. My primary issue involves a simple question: Of those scientists you refer to, how many had their faith first, and PhD's second? How many entered their scientific field believing that what they observe must necessarily relate to the God they already believe in? I'm willing to bet nearly all of them; furthermore, I'm willing to bet that those who had their PhD's first came to faith out of emotional need, attracting to that faith body which is most familiar to them in the culture.

This would imply that, in my world, God is composed of Andy Lippincott (Doonesbury), Billy Neary (Streiber's Billy), Seymour Glass (JD Salinger), Stevie Ray Vaughan, Landrew Wood (Mother Love Bone) .... The list goes on. I can only leave you with your perception intact, though; such processes of mind and spirit are yours to resolve. But, like the phenomenon, I ask: Is this the only explanation, or merely a comfortable one?

Understanding that I in no way intend to disparage your intelligence, I would ask: Does this mean that nothing you know can be demonstrated objectively?

The same is true of God. It's your own paradox to work out; again, I point to the faith based on the works of humans, which seems to insist that God needs no progenitor. One must be willing to consider relevant issues toward one's own perspective. Again, I accuse the danger of the cessation of learning; it is demonstrable in society that many Creationists simply cannot countenance the nature of the scientific method and what objectivity demonstrates. This is why I ask: Whence comes God? And then there's creation ex nihilo, which demands that God created the Universe from nothing, and rules out any discussion of method. (The most common version of how God created ex nihilo usually results in something that looks more than a little like emanation theory, which was a long-standing faith before Nicaea. It was an act of man that made creation of something out of nothing.)

Nobody but creationist Christians believe that scientists have a full, flawless understanding of what they've determined. In this case, sir, I must suggest that you're tilting windmills. Watch cosmology this year; it's an interesting reformulation taking place that appears to offer a yet-revised picture of the future of the Universe. You'll notice, however, that gravity didn't turn off, so there's a good deal of it that's right. We can still predict gravitational interaction, electrical interaction, and so forth. With those things we can only see with telescopes, the scientists are doing their best. But they are out there observing and trying to figure it out. I mean, we can't predict earthquakes yet, but the effort to do so will bring about better lifesaving results than praying to God every time the ground shakes.

Welcome to Sciforums, Dan. We hope you'll stick around for a while. I look forward to hearing more of your ideas.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome to sciforums, Dan! Hopefully you'll stick around and present some other ideas.

It seems like such an odd occurence for someone that once held to reason, logic, and evidence to throw these things away and, instead, hold onto something as elusive as faith. Did something very specific in your life make you begin to doubt the existence of God, which in turn, led you to think that as long as you just believed everything would be all right? To turn away from reason, logic, and evidence is quite the 180 degree change.

Perhaps you considered yourself quite intelligent and a studier and student of knowledge. But, the more you learned and experienced (empirically), the more you realized that the idea of God began to develop far too many holes. And, once you realized that you couldn't fill the holes in with further logic, reason, and evidence you decided to fill the holes in with faith.

Faith is the perfect false bandaid. God ordered his people (in the O.T.) to kill an entire village--men, women, children, and animals included? That's okay. Put this here faith bandaid over that little sore. There. Much better. Faith tells the person that God <b>must</b> have had a reason to kill children of the enemy, even though the majority of us would think that rather excessive.

Just because you cover the holes with faith doesn't mean that the holes won't continue to leak or fester or become gangrenous. You'll be able to put the things that don't jive with you on the back burner only so long as they remain irrelevant to you. But, if you begin to get in your logic, reasoning, evidence-bearing mindset again, you'll realize that the faith bandaids were merely figments of your creative (and longing) imagination.

Yes, longing. There isn't a one of us that hopes we can or will see our loved ones once we pass. But wishing this does not make it so, nor does disbelieving it actually. The point is, Dan, that why would you want to sell yourself short by believing in the Christian God? If you once held to reason, logic, and evidence, you'll realize that, through historical facts and study, the Christian God has been quite demonic and tyrannical and bloodthirsty. If you must believe in God, then why this one?

As Cris mentioned earlier, emotions play a significant role in our lives. When we watch specific movies, feelings are evoked within us, which appeal to higher motives. For example, we may become angered when we watch Schindler's List, because we see a representation of what it would have been like for our fellow humans to be completely degraded and humiliated. When we read accounts of what history tells us the Inquisition did to those heathens and infidels that did not believe in Christ, we experience harsh feelings of helplessness and an intense desire to help and ensure that these things do not repeat themselves. But why is this? Because these feelings appeal to us and are in us all. I, also, have experienced (and still do on occasion) the feelings you describe. They are admittedly limited to the company I keep and the books or movies I read or watch, respectively.

What's the point? Well, just to show you that we have more in common when it comes to subjective interpretations than you might realize. If faith is the tool, then everyone is an expert. But if it's reason, logic, or evidence, well then there's a chance for everyone to learn. Faith stagnates knowledge and wisdom. It says to them, "I have no further need of you when I am in the service of my God." But logic, reason, and evidence, in turn, say to God, "If that's the case, then why does this prove differently?"

So, my question to you, Dan, is why you traded in logic, reason, evidence for a faith-based understanding? And, I think, it's not because you thought that man's faculties could dissuade you. Did you come across something which you couldn't equate with God? And did that lead you to say, "Backburner here we come! Time for faith!"

Well, I hope you'll stay and discuss back and forth on this.

thanks!

prag

 

Greetings Dan!

I hope you understand the doubt of many of the rest of us, who haven't seen any signs of God first-hand and have no watertight evidence of him second-hand. This being the case, we have to seek an answer to whether he exists or not through other means; the best being logic and what we've learned of the universe through science.

It is not uncommon to be humbled by nature, and it does seem on first look that a Creator is the only plausible explanation for all this grandiosity. Most people probably believe that a God is needed to explain the existence of life. However, there have also been many people who have decided to find out definitely instead of just relying on an ungrounded feeling: we call them scientists.

May I suggest the excellent book The Blind Watchmaker by the distinguished zoologist Richard Dawkins? It may convince you that there does seem to be a good alternative explanation for our existence. I believe the book also deals with most, if not all, of the arguments that will appear here when more people respond to your post.

In addition you definitely need to read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, already referred to by Cris. It shows us the numerous serious inconsistensies in the Bible. It also makes a strong case that Jesus quite likely is a myth only. I've not heard that anyone has been able to shoot holes through Doherty's reasoning, so far.

It could be argued that to belive or not is the most important decision every person has to make during their lifetime. Therefore the decision should be made with an open mind and after careful weighing of all the available evidence. Having faith really is just a cop-out for not having to think for yourself and do the hard work of reviewing the evidence.

Think of a courtroom: in any important matter, e.g. if you were being accused of capital offence, I'm sure you wouldn't want the judge (or jury, for you Americans) to pronounce the sentence based on personal feelings alone. If you knew yourself to be innocent of the offence, wouldn't you instead want the case against you to be based on solid evidence only?

Similarly we should give God a fair trial. Of course, if he exists, we can just hope that he decides to show up anytime to say hello to all of us, and end the debate. It would certainly simplify things; now it seems he has to be tried and convicted in absentia.

In closing, I must add that pending aforementioned revelation, and after having personally reviewed the facts to the best of my extent (yes, I've naturally read the Bible also), I am highly skeptical of the existence of any supernatural phenomena, including God or gods.

I wish happy hunting for you, and I hope you will find answers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Arto

 

God on trial

Arto,

A fellow skeptic, welcome indeed to sciforums. Nice first post as well.

I have often wondered how I could arrange a very public incident where the solution had to involve a trial of God. A worldwide TV audience with expert advocates from both sides, much like the OJ Simpson trial but perhaps with a more believable ending. How could this be arranged? What would it take to provoke the authorities to start such a trial?

I guess one would first have to define the crime and then complain to the courts.

Any ideas, anyone?

Cris

PS. Where in the EU are you? I'm originally from Britain.

 

Re: God on trial

Cris, thanks for the warm welcome.

Britain is still some way off from here: I'm located in Helsinki, Finland. You know, the backwater that is the home of the sauna, Nokia and Linux?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I remember reading somewhere of a Holocaust survivor who as a child in Auschwitz witnessed erudite and pious rabbis hold a 'trial of God' in the barracks: they eventually found him guilty of crimes against mankind. With good reason, one might add.

Unfortunately I don't think we have a good chance of indicting the Big Guy other than indirectly. The Scopes trial was probably the closest you could get. Perhaps a follow-up to that, e.g. regarding the Kansas censorship of evolution, might be in order?

More usefully, since it is fiction, what about putting an age limit on the Bible: Rated R for sexual content and excess violence and brutality. Tales of eternal damnation to fiery hell are surely not the best of bedtime stories for developing minds.

Just my two cents. Good night now,
Arto

 

Careful now, Arto

That's absolutely dangerous here in the US. Back around 1990, a parents' group with Congress' ear forced a settlement in which record companies started putting content warnings on their albums. The little black and white stickers read: Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics.

Sales on cheaply made, over-the-top heavy metal went through the sky. Rap albums experienced doubling and tripling of sales.

Even among our most backwater fundamentalists, there would be a calming after the initial furor of an R-rating for the Bible. After all, kids would be reading the Bible in order to find out what all the hubub was about. I think of the Bible like a gun: Sure, it's your right, but it makes the streets more dangerous.

And hey, you remember what the American Christians said about their own kids: They're too dumb to think for themselves, so dangerous content is dangerous to society.

Rating the Bible R would have the direct effect of making the United States that much more dangerous.

For the love of humanity ... we'd do better to put a "Don't Panic!" sticker on the cover of the Bible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hello
I wish I had the education, and understanding that many of you have. I'm grateful that this thread was started, so I could as well learn about god and his existence or lack of.

I don't have much to say, other than thank you, except for one point that caught me when I first started to read.

I'm very curious as to what evidence, logic and reasoning points you to your beleif in god?.. I don't think I have seen any myself.

 

Friends,

Wow, you guys are much more well educated than the average person I meet online. You've given this plenty of thought obviously. But hey, I'd like to respond to some points made previously.

Ah, reasoning. 100% reliability? You know scientists have been wrong time and time again, right? They based their research based upon supposed "reliable" theories and previous conclusions. Reason is only as good as your understanding of the subject. And, as humans, it will never be perfect and will always have room for error (Hence, you'll mistake something for fact when it's actually false - even if you lean on your logic and reasoning).

Reasoning heavily relies on human judgement. Without judgement, you cannot reason. You decide what is true, what is not, what is valid, what is not, what is acceptable and what is not.

Faith isn't as much of a far fetched idea as you might think. Did you thoroughly examine your chair before you sat down to read this? I highly doubt it. You had faith it would hold you up. You didn't know for sure, you didn't test it out, you just sat down and the chair held you up. That's what faith is. Creative imagination has nothing to do with it.

But the whole point is to find out if something is valid. You may think your logic is valid at one point, but it's possible that, while you think your logic is valid, that it's not. If someone has the right idea, but doesn't know all there is to know on the subject, he can easily be led astray by another person who has a much more convincing arguement, but is dead wrong in the end. Deception is very convincing. It wouldn't deceive people otherwise.

Yes, but remember, man's logic is not perfect. There is plenty of room for unseen error.

Or facts that appear to be proven. Science has come up with "proofs" that are now seen as false and inaccurate. Science does that all the time.

Valid logic isn't a guarantee when you use human logic and reasoning. Things may appear to be valid, when in actuality, they can be misleading. And as long as it appears valid to you (or anyone else), it will be accepted as truth (whether it's really true or not).

Less accurate and reliable method? My friend, you have so much faith in the things around you, you don't even realize it. Turn on a light switch. Do you check the circuitry beforehand for the sake of reasoning? Faith is the core of why I believe (seeing how I have nothing you, personally, can feel, touch, taste, smell, or hear). Only unwise men believe in only what they see. You've never seen George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, yet you believe they existed. Even things like that take faith. You learned about them from a history book more than likely. Same with me and the events that happened 2000 years ago concerning Christ. The only difference is that I have an ongoing relationship with God - I don't have that with the other history figures.

I beg to differ.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet it's still not perfect, therefor remains flawed.

And science and it's "truths" haven't ever experienced these things? A few centuries ago, men thought flying was impossible. It was simply impossible. "If man were meant to fly, he would have been born with wings," right? What they thought was true then wasn't really true. Their understanding on the subject of flight was incomplete (though they thought it was). Same thing goes for science today. It still hasn't changed.

Their research is solely based on reason. These are high ranking scientists - some of which were not always Christian but became so because of the undeniable proofs they uncovered in the field of science.

And for something to exist, it has to be recorded by man? There are recorded things like that though. Books upon books. Stories - some even televised (though I wouldn't rely solely on what T.V. says and accept it as truth). You just simply choose not to accept them. Probably because you haven't seen it for yourself. But then again, I doubt you've seen the Amazon either, so hey, there's faith once again. Imagine that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The books were written from different points of view. Each telling what he (and the witnesses he talked to) saw. An example of differing points of view that are still both truth is like me looking at someone with a black eye and saying it's blue (looking at the surrounding tissue and overall area of the eye due to bruising), while someone else (who looks at the used-to-be white part of the eye) says it's red (thick with blood). I say blue, the other person says red, we're both right.

Jesus was a Jew. And so, yeah, that line of belief had been going on for a while.

Haha, what do you think the Bible is? It's a collection of eye witness accounts. Will you not believe anything unless there's an eyewitness living today? Boy, that would sure put a limit on what you would believe, huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The same can be said for George Washington too if you want to get technical. "We needed a leader, so the public made one up!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Funny though, how Jesus wasn't the kind of Messiah the people were expecting. Then, there are other documents on that time period about some events after Jesus's assention into heaven. Like accounts of all of the disciples dieing brutal deaths (crusifixion, skinned alive, etc) for not denying Christ even through the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire amongst others. The only one to survive and die of old age was John. At around 90 years old.

Oh, no my friend. I analyzed the whole evening that it happened. The whole experience didn't follow human psychology. It was without reason (the crying while praising God alone and such). I was alone, just chillin' out. There was a feeling all of a sudden though while I started to pray. Quite unordinary. There was supposedly no cause, but the whole experience was there. Why? Because it was a God thing.

You're mistaken. Did you know that when Mt. St. Helens erupted, it made formations that scientists used to think took thousands and thousands of years? Guess that sure made them re-evaluate their thinking process. "All the evidence" does not suggest that nature is the result of a very long and random process. Haha, and random occurences? That's like saying a printing shop exploded and a dictionary popped out in perfect order. Haha, let me share something with you from Jerry R. Berman (An instructor of science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio who holds multiple Ph.D's).

To determine the possible number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which can be lined up only one way (1 x 1); or a system of two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or 1, 2 and 2, 1; a system of three parts, which can be alined six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or 1, 2, 3; 2, 1, 3; 2, 1, 3; 1, 3, 2; 3, 1, 2; 3, 2, 1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2 x 3 x 4), and so on. Thus a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3 ...206 different ways, equal to 1 x 2 x 3 ...x 206. This number is called "206 factorial" and is written "206!"

The value 206! is an enormously large number, approximately 10 to the 388th power, which is a "1" followed by 388 zeros. Achievement of only the correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their upside-down or right-side-up placement, thier alignment, the origin of the tendons, ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of 10 to the 388th power random assortments. Now let's say these parts were randomly arranged once a second. The odds of achieving the correct alignment would be less than once every 10 billion years. And this is just 206 parts that are compatible with each other. Even the most simple cell (the basis of all life) is much, much, much more complex than this (and much more complex than even the most advanced computer). Not to mention the parts of a cell depend on each other (showing evolution couldn't have taken place). If one part of the cell waited for the others to evolve into what they are now, it would quickly decay and die off. Seeing how it would have less than the minimum amount of parts required for survival. Therefor, they must've been created simultaneously.

Ah, you are mistaken. There's a passage where I believe Paul is talking about distinguishing between spirits. He says that if a spirit does not recognize that Jesus came in the flesh is from Satan. Any that will admit that Jesus came in the flesh is from God. Therefor, even Paul confirms that Jesus came in the flesh (Not just a mere spiritual image).

Faith is also believing that what ever "proof" and understanding you've come across is accurate and genuine. It's your decision whether or not to believe in what someone claims as "proof." Therefor, faith is necessary.

Actually, I was just sitting in class one day and an overwhelming sense of doubt swept over me. It was a few weeks after I had first spoken to the youth of my church (I guess Satan started seeing me as a threat and sent one of his flunkies to try to convince me away from the truth, but that's just my speculation). The thoughts of "What if..." crossed my mind for months. Though, I kept on praying and seeking God. Even in the midst of my doubt. Now I'd like for you to think "What if..." What if it's true? What if God really did come down in the form of man to save man from the mistakes he'd done. What if God really is there, but man is so bent on their own understanding and their "proofs" that they don't see him. Just something to think about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I haven't turned away from logic, reasoning, and evidence. I just don't have those as my basis for believing in God. In fact, I find all those things are a lot of the time quite complementing towards the accounts of the Bible.

Actually, it's theories like evolution that have far too many holes. Darwin realized this when he rejected his own theory. There's no holes in the idea of God as far as the eye can see.

Actually, the exact opposite happens more often when it comes to the theory of evolution. When you start using logic, reason, and evidence on the idea of evolution - sorry, it doesn't work out. Too many holes and jumps.

Oh, come now. Even I could see an obvious reason why. If they left their civilization standing, and didn't totally annihilate them, deceit could've crept into their own life style. Their way of life could have started to mix with God's people (Which would lead them away from God). That's just one possible conclusion. I'm sure there are others. However, trying to understand and speculate why God said to do something is futile. Man's understanding is limited. Surely you can agree to that.

Again, logic and reasoning are limited and not perfect. There's plenty of room for error. Faith bandaids? Haha, you make it sound as if there's something to cover up. Did you know that an orthodontist discovered that European museum fossils of ancient man had been tampered with to adhere to evolution theories? Now THERE'S something to cover up. You're not going to understand everything you come across - that's where faith comes in. If God says do something, I think he'd know best. Just like the programmer of a computer knows what's better for the computer than the computer itself does.

Bloodthirsty? Mmmm... I hardly think of him as bloodthirsty. Sacrifice back in the Old Testament took place to cover sin (rebelling against God requires death). As far as the wars are concerned, if you had a choice group of people who actually believed in you as God, would you not defend them or empower them to crush their attackers and protect them? And seeing how Jesus took our place and died for us, I think God's a little more caring than "blood thirsty." Seeing how he could've let humanity rot in hell rather than leaving the comforts of heaven to pay our debt and make it possible for us to go to heaven.

That's just it though. The cause of this experience wasn't because of company, books, movies, or thought. It was beyond the reasoning of psychology, or science.

Science isn't as "anti-God" as you might think. It's only taught that way in schools. But again, if you're in the service of God and people around you are telling you what they think is right, why would you follow them instead of God? Their reasoning and understanding is limited and open to error while God is not.

No. There's still not a single shred of "evidence" science, archeology, or whatever can come up with that can disprove God. Science can no more prove evolution than it can creation (though the probability factor tends to lean towards creation). I didn't have doubts because of something I couldn't explain. 'Twas a feeling of doubt - a disturbing presense that shocked the heck out of me.

Or what you know and understand of science. Man's understanding on this is far from complete - therefor their conclusions on things have a vastly large space for error.

I call them human - and human's make mistakes and false conclusions based on what SEEMS to be right.

Interesting how many scientists come to know God AFTER reviewing such evidence.

*Sigh* People keep refusing to believe in him no matter what. Their own judgement will stop them from accepting God because of their need for personal, concrete, physical proof. God came to earth 2000 years ago, changed the world (no other history figure affected the world like Jesus did), and everyone after that wants their own personal, physical encounter. While some have had such encounters recently, you simply do not believe them because it hasn't happened to you. And you cannot accept them because there's nothing concrete. (Really now, if someone really did meet God and came to tell you about it today, you still wouldn't accept it because there's no "proof.")

Reviewing the facts to the best of your extent... are you sure your extent is good enough? Have you read books/literature concerning this subject by scientists who believe in God too (Obviously, you've read books by scientists who don't)? Just remember, that doing things to the best of your extent might not be enough to find what the truth really is.

Well then, I'm glad I had the time to respond to your posts. I'll be praying for you, my friend. Praying God will reveal himself to you in due time (when you're ready and in accordance to his will).

In Christ,
Brace



"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." --Colossians 2:8

 

steady on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hiya Dan ...

Ummmmm ... simply put ... if your God (Jesus) was the true omnipotent God of LOVE and the Universe ... why the bloody chaos in our little backwater (Earth)? Naaahhhh ... don`t quote Exodus, the rest of the Bible, or Mythology. Look into your own heart, and ask yourself how you would react/manage/empathise an Universe as a God of Love!
As a (God) would your Bible tell a different tale? Maybe less gory? Fly the manacles and look into your being. And try to be honest.

Take care

 

Reply to Dan

Hi Dan!

Thanks for the lengthy answer! I'm sure Cris and tiassa will take up issues relating to reason and logic better than I probably could, but I would like to try to clarify some other points.

Yes, scientists are human. I think tiassa put it concisely: Of those scientists you refer to, how many had their faith first, and PhD's second?

I get the impression you may not entirely understand how science works. The core of science is not its findings, theories and conclusions about the universe and how everything ticks; they could be thrown away and rediscovered. The core of science is the scientific method alone.

All our scientific theories are even at best approximations of underlying reality, and may well be doomed to imperfection for all eternity. When Einstein "overthrew" Newton's laws of gravity, you couldn't have stated that Newton was "wrong" about how gravity worked. Einstein simply had come up with a more accurate and deeper understanding of what makes the cosmos function. That's why Newton's laws are still being taught in high schools, being very much simpler to grasp than the general theory of relativity. Now, at the start of this century, scientists are again searching for a better theory, that could marry Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics together successfully, and thus repair the flaws in both. Scientists are calling this effort the "ultimate theory", but it may well be that even this theory, when finished, will have to be revised sometime in the future, as our knowledge of the universe increases.

This is very unlike religious dogma, which is inflexible and (literally, in the case of the Ten Commandments) written in stone. Science is a continuing great adventure of discovery, a work-in-progress, and most scientists willingly recognize it as such. Religion again doesn't even want to pose any questions or find any answers. Religion instead takes it that God is omnipotent (what a joke, I'm sorry to say) and we don't have concern our ignorant heads with the questions at all.

So what is the scientific method then? Possibly the best person to answer that in full would have been the late Carl Sagan (I recommend his book The Demon-Haunted World), but I'll attempt the effort although I'm not a scientist (if any of you readers are, feel free to correct me). It is a set of tools, based on reason and logic. Explanations of phenomena observed in the natural world are called hypotheses. Hypotheses must be testable and falsifiable. If an hypothesis is incorrect it can be tested by experimentation and/or observation and proved false. Once a hypothesis has been supported by many independent experiments and observations it is considered by the community of scientists to be a theory.

It is important to note that a theory in science is very different from the common use of the word, meaning an opinion or a guess. A theory needs to be securely established on observed facts, otherwise it stays just a hypothesis that is not taken quite seriously. Today Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is quite as firmly established as the theory (!!) that the Earth revolves around the sun. I don't know what they teach you in the States, but the great majority of scientists today do accept the evolutionary theory, even if it always doesn't suit their personal beliefs regarding a Christian or other deity.

However, the small number of critics (mostly Creationists) are an unusually vocal group, which might explain the situation in America. We're after all talking of an issue more controversial to established religions than, for example, the belief that the Earth is flat (the Pope publicly admitted in 1992, several hundred years too late, that Galileo was right and the Earth really is round. He has also been forced to admit that the evolutionary theory is firmly backed up and has to be reconciled with the faith.)

Now, suppose I'm having a conversation with you (a Christian) in addition to a Jew, a Moslem and say a Zoroastrian follower. You all try to passionately convince me that your own belief is the only correct one, and you all tell me you've had personal supernatural experiences. But you also claim the other three are dead wrong. So who am I to believe? It seems to me I should not believe any one of you, unless you can convince me by rational argument that what you say may be based on something else than just faith and emotion.

Please note that I am not calling anyone a fraud. I'm just saying that for the majority of "strange" experiences people have there are simpler psychological and natural explanations than invoking supernatural forces. If I were to believe God exists, based on the (admittedly, often credible) personal testimony of many of his followers, then why shouldn't I believe in flying saucers and alien abductions as well? Or Uri Geller the spoon-bender (who in the end turned out to be a fraud)?

Consider that about one billion people share your belief in Christ, but the rest five billion believe in other or no deities. Now, what makes you think that the particular religion of your choice happens to be true? I'm going to quote something Richard Dawkins once wrote:

You hold the Bible to be an eye-witness account of happenings in Israel some two millennia ago. Then, by the same logic, why do you not hold the Koran to be just as true? We can't know many things for sure when researching history: maybe Herodotus, the Greek historian, invented everything he wrote from thin air? Or maybe he never existed in the first place? Without the aid of time-machine, we'll never know for sure: but the circumstantial evidence of the times makes it more probable than not that we are on safe waters in assuming to the contrary. However, the Bible is not a history book. It attempts to be an eye-witness account of supernatural events. It is, no doubt, to some extent based on historical happenings, but no serious scholar (who isn't a Christian) would argue that it should be taken as literary fact.

Now, just a thing off the top of my head, to demonstrate that the foundations of Christian faith aren't all they're sometimes made to be: did you know that Christmas isn't based on the Bible? That is, the date of Jesus' birth is not mentioned in the Bible. It was not until 530 C.E. that the monk Dionysos Exigus fixed the date of Jesus' birth to December 25th. This was because several pagan gods (e.g. Hercules son of Zeus, Bacchus god of wine and the Persian light-god Mithra) were already supposed to have been born on that day, so it was a convenient date to use. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the followers of Mithra believed he had been born of a virgin, had twelve followers, performed miracles, was killed and resurrected, and functioned as mankind's savior. Quite an impressive figure, eh? And the Mithra religion predates Christianity by at least half a millennia, and is in no way unique of the cults of that time. Now, you could naturally claim, like some supposed "Christian scholars" have, that Satan arranged the Mithra cult, in order to deceive us of the "truth", but hey, you're a reasonable enough guy aren't you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course not. I don't believe I or anybody else is infallible. We are only human. My point is, I didn't start out wanting to prove or disprove God's existence. I simply think that intellectually a scientific world-view makes the most sense in view of the facts. I would be glad to be wrong: life after death and a grand purpose to everything are comforting thoughts to anybody, no? So if you could show me a rational argument demonstrating this, I would be happy to give it serious thought. But please understand that you will not be able to convince me -- or other skeptics -- of your case based on emotional import or "eye-witness account" alone.

If I suddenly saw a burning bush and heard a loud voice telling me to get on my knees and start praying, the first thing I would think of is not that I was having a personal experience with God; no, it would seem far more likely to me that I was going mad. That is, I would arrive at this conclusion if I had any reasoning faculties left at that point

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now, if I had several people around me, and we all had exactly the same experience, it would be a little less likely that we all went mad at the exactly same time (of course the possibility remains that we were mad to begin with). Perhaps there was somebody hiding near us with a loudspeaker, and maybe I could find a gas canister and a match under the bush. I still would not invoke the supernatural until I exhausted every other possibility.

This principle is called Occam's Razor, and is an important part of science, or indeed any investigation. It is defined like the following:

After all, it is a documented fact that people deceive, mislead, commit fraud and go insane all the time all around the world. Whatever you may say, it is not a documented fact that God exists. To prove that the Almighty is up there answering prayers, you'll need plenty of objective proof, subjective simply won't do.

I will be the first to admin we'll likely never have absolute evidence that proves God's nonexistence, since we can't search every corner of the universe. However, the burden of proof rests squarely on your, and other believers', shoulders. As an example of what I mean, consider the following: if I claimed Santa Claus existed, nobody would expect you to have to provide proof he doesn't, either by searching the entire North Pole for him or providing argument why he couldn't possibly exist. Instead, I would be expected to give some proof of him or be ridiculed. Just saying I saw and spoke with Santa wouldn't do me much good in the eyes of most people; perhaps some who felt on an emotional level that I was being sincere would take me on faith alone and we could start a Santa cult together. And then commit group suicide with Nike sneakers on.

Arto

 

I believe it was Szasz who said something to the effect:

If you speak to god, you are considered to be praying;
If god speaks to you, you are considered to be insane.

Even feeling as I do about religion, I must say, it does have some benefit: when all else fails, it's as good excuse as any to kill your fellow man.

 

Why I Belive in GOD!

Chagur:
I believe in GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit! And that with out any doubt or manifestations or audible voices! He's in my (me and Dan and others) hearts! And thank GOD that He is no respecter of persons!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I feel happy and content in my life knowing that I have a real live and everlasting and caring Father in Heaven that really cares for me, even when I in no ways deserve it, He is a friend that sticks closer then a brother!

Sure there's a lot of things that are 'invisible' to you in this universe, but disregarding the ultimate truth is ignorance, isn't it?
Sure it's by Faith we walk as Christians, but the true POWER is there, living witness. All has purpose and meaning to life, thank you Jesus!
And thank you Chagur ,and Prag, and others, "to the Glory of God"!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi all! Great discussion! There are just a few points that I'd like to make, and I apologize for the length of this posting. First, I'd like to make a few specific observations based on things I've read in this discussion.
One thing that I think somewhat agrees with Dan's point, is that Science/Logic and reasoning/the Scientific method are often thought of as an ABSOLUTE 100% infallible truth, which in fact they are not (eloquent explanation of what I mean in Arto's example about looking at Newton's laws in light of Einstein's theories). In that way I think that our society often turns science into a religion, and uses these processes as religion uses faith. I think there is understanding/wisdom which transcends these processes, and it is important to recognize that (more on that in a minute). Having said that, I would agree that these tools are essential to understanding our universe. In addition, just because they are fallible does not mean that the existence of God (in the Christian sense) is proved or disproved, nor that faith/spirituality is a more "reliable" basis of understanding.
Secondly, even assuming that the Bible was an accurate eyewitness historical document (which I believe would be tough to prove), it is often the ONLY document from that period which used as evidence by many Christians. While I am sure that there are other documents that exist that would support the existence of Jesus as well as events that took place in that time period, I doubt that the body of evidence is enough to conclusively prove anything, let alone be overwhelming.
I think that there is a larger point to make here which is that the Faith/Spirituality vs. Science/Logic and Reason/Scientific method split is an artificial one. I think that to ignore either, or to say that one is more important than another is limiting one's ability to understand the universe. Please note that the points I am about to make are representations of ideas put forth in a book I recommend EVERYONE read called "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra. This split, which was solidified by Descartes (and subsequently heralded the birth of modern science), has led to an emphasis on a very mechanistic view of the universe (i.e. break the universe down to it's parts, study the parts, and you will understand the universe). While this innovation led to tremendous leaps in science, and was critical to the advancement of human thought, it was just as shortsighted as when Galileo was persecuted by the church for his revolutionary discoveries. It relegated spirituality/faith to the status of a vice of the ignorant. I view Spirituality/Faith as an expression of the experiential aspect of understanding the universe, and it is this experiencing the universe, as opposed to analyzing it, that has always been an integral part of the advancement of human understanding. Modern physics is beginning to validate in scientific language concepts that have been understood by Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians for thousands of years. As J.R Oppenheimer said:
"The general notions about human understanding....which are illustrated by discoveries in atomic physics are not in the nature of things wholly unfamiliar, wholly unheard of, or new. Even in our own culture they have a history, and in Buddhist and Hindu thought a more considerable and central place. What we shall find is an exemplification, and encouragement, and a refinement of old wisdom"
I guess my long winded point is that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, rather they are both important components in understanding. I believe that God does exist, in that God represents the interconnectedness and unity of everything in the universe. I do not believe that any one religion has a monopoly on this type of understanding, but I believe that they are all describing the same ideas, each in their own way, and modern science is just giving a technical language to describe those ideas. So Dan's epiphany about God was an inexplicable event where he was able to perceive the universe, just as I believe Einstein was able to do in 1905 with Michele Angelo Besso when he realized that absolute space and time didn't exist. Many of our greatest minds have had such events, and many have said that these events were essential to their understanding, and transcended explanation. Sorry for the novel everyone, but it was inspired by this great discussion. Thanks all!
Spencer

 

Dan, there are no true stories about angles and miracles happening. If there was anything concrete, it would be all over the news media and would be a major global frenzy. Theres only ever a witnesses reports, sketchy evidence, very high percentage is easily picked as hoaxes - which indicates the other small percentage of unexplained stuff is likely to be hoaxed to.

I have stood in a crowd and witnessed a sighting of the virgin mary, while tons of zealots did their thing. I at first didn't understand, but then I saw the light..!!!
The figure was nothing bu the result of incomplete waterblasting on the side of the building to remove city grime. From a distance it was a distinct round halo head on top of a droopy shouldered torso, upclose quite obvious for anyone with a brain switched on.
Also from a certain angle and place on a downtown street you can see the face of Jesus in the side of glass building, move a little further and you see what can't be mistaken for anything else but a Giraffe.

Lie on your back out in the wilderness and watch the clouds go by and try to see shapes...

keep dreaming... reality sucks

 

Spencer, just wanted to say that I agree with almost everything you said (and I can't say that about any other posts here!)...

Thanks!

 

Make me believe

Hey all again,
I'm getting the feeling that the fact that I don't believe in anything anymore is not really a good way to live and as I am a very open minded person, I am willing to listen to anyone and let them try and prove to me that there is actually a God.
I don't like to be a pessamist and doubting everything is not good, so, please, try and help me here, unless of course no one can be bothered....

 

I Belive in GOD!

Well I believe in 'miracles', and I believe in GOD, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit! "Jesus is the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Him!"
Jesus is alive and well!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And will come again to take full control, and to bring order to the chaos!
THERE IS ORDER IN THE CHAOS!
I believe in GOD because He is so real in my soul!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And none can replace Him!

 

Not an answer

That really wasn't an answer was it?
That was just you expressing your beliefs.
I asked or am asking for proof - hardcore facts or at least very good reasons to believe, not ones own personal reasons for believing.
Thanks, but try again...