^ Truthdermdoc said:
God has always been. He is the Alpha and Omega.
How did God begin?
11,526 Views |
143 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by Rudyjax
"I Am that I Am" - Exodus 3:14
Good enough for Moses...good enough for me!
If and when you get there, ask Him yourself.
Good enough for Moses...good enough for me!
If and when you get there, ask Him yourself.
Let me just say- I don't believe anyone here has a Ferrari.
To me the real question is why do people believe in God? Because the answer to the OP is simple- by definition, God has no beginning or end, otherwise - no God.
Plus, what about truth? Agree that, that should be more important that hedging our bet.
To me the real question is why do people believe in God? Because the answer to the OP is simple- by definition, God has no beginning or end, otherwise - no God.
Plus, what about truth? Agree that, that should be more important that hedging our bet.
Quote:
That may be true in some cases and with some people, but I don't believe that's always true. Rather, I think that the evidence points to some super-intelligence having created the universe and life.
Do you think its possible for two sincere and intelligent people to look at similar bodies of evidences and reach differing conclusions? Or do you think every atheist to be dishonest? (This questions sounds more aggressive than I mean for it to be. I am looking to understand how you see things).
Nope. If I felt 99% sure there was a God, I would call myself at least a Deist.Quote:
My come-back to you is that you seem to argue that since we cannot prove the existence of with 100% certainty, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that we are therefore leaping to conclusions. The core of my argument is that's not true, but rather that the cumulative evidence is so overwhelming that it becomes unreasonable to doubt the existence of God. Your argument seems, to me at least, to be the mirror image of the one you describe in the quote above.
. . . .
With regard to my assigning a 70% probability to each of the arguments for God, you respond: "How do we go about assigning likelihoods to any of these arguments?" That's a good question and I readily admit that I pulled 70% out of the air. However, each argument, if it is valid, means that it has >50% chance of being correct. Eventually, with enough of such arguments, then it means that the odds of their being a God is so statistically high as to be essentially 100%.
70% . . . 50% . . . 10%. . . . Any value you pick is out of thin air. For me, personally, to discuss the probability of the existence of something as a mathematical or scientific equation, then I have to insist that we base these probabilities on more than someone's gut feel or on their decades of religious indoctrination and cultural and social conditioning. I'm fine with you developing your own personal probability beliefs, but I intentionally abstain from the practice. Show me a thousand existences and show me the explanations and characteristics of those formed naturally versus those Created by a God that we might create develop reasonable probabilities in the explanation of our own. That is, of course, an absurd ask. But, its an absurd topic.
Maybe someone thinks the probabilities of your arguments are all less than 0.1% and the cumulative value for the overall probability of God is negligible? How do you argue against their 'gut feel'? Whatever you think the cumulative weights are for the existence of God, it is entirely subjective.
The thing I notice about your list of arguments is that I believe they are all basically variations of the teleological argument - the argument from design. The argument works by observing apparent order, complexity, design, and other things without full natural explanations and concluding a designer is necessary. As I stated before, this argument does appeal to me. But, so do all of the counter arguments. It all makes it very difficult assign likelihoods to any of if.
What I do find ironic about the teleological arguments is that they seem to follow this sorta logic that says that because we cannot understand a thing, we therefore know exactly what it is. We cannot understand the laws of nature, therefore, we know it must have been a Creator. We cannot understand the start of life or free will or consciousness, therefore we must have been Created. We cannot understand fine tuning, therefore God. All of that is wrong. If we cannot understand a thing, then we cannot understand a thing. Argument from ignorance is fallacy, in my book.
Can I sit on God? Can a million other people take turns sitting on God and then independently verifying that the thing they sat on exists? Can we take pieces of God and put them through tests to check for composition and characteristics? The heartburn I have with your analogy is that there are different criteria and different methodologies for evaluating physical phenomenon (chair) and the supernatural (God). One is objective. And the other relies on personal experience. If you took the same one million people that sat in the chair and you asked them to describe God, you would get wildly different responses and a deviation that I would argue makes this type of evidence entirely unreliable.Quote:
You know, there are probably theories out there that the chair I'm sitting in does not truly exist but is either simply a wave function, an artifact of my mind, or some other creative idea. However, for all practical purposes, it's silly for me to deny that my chair exists. My argument is that for all practical purposes, it is just as silly to deny that God exists as it would be to deny that my chair exists.
I think you've contradicted yourself here. You are simultaneously saying that it is possible to disprove an infinitely powerful being and also saying we are incapable of doing so.Quote:I don't think that's true. All it would take it to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of the evidences for God was caused by materialistic processes. We not only are incapable of doing that, we actually don't have any evidences in support of such arguments.Quote:
In other words, to provide a counter argument against the existence or actions of an infinitely powerful being must be, by definition, an impossible task.
In case I've misunderstood . . . . What I am saying is that there is no materialistic or scientific knowledge that can be gained that would disprove the version of God that religion has created. If scientists discover today how abiogenesis occurred on Earth 3 billion years ago through a natural process, then tomorrow a religious apologist will explain how God guided the process or created all of Creation with the purpose of that process occurring. Same goes for consciousness or the fine tuning or anything else.
And I know that that would happen because it has happened many times already. Every time science provides a natural explanation for something like evolution, diseases, plagues, droughts, weather, eclipses, the tides, and on and on, religion tells us that its all God's plan and all consistent with their God. The goalposts will always be moved.
If God is presupposed to be all powerful and the source of all of reason and logic and nature and material, then what path does naturalism or empiricism or reason have to disprove God? Religion uses these presuppositions to make ALL possible arguments null and void. And if you buy into these presuppositions, there is neither a need nor any room to ever question whether your original presuppositions are wrong to begin with. You might as well start off with the presupposition that "all of the following presuppositions and conclusions are immune from questioning. . . . ".
Quote:I don't follow your argument at all here. Could you clarify?Quote:
The existence of 'something' might be interesting, but it doesn't tell me how to live my life, anything about morality, or anything about purpose. Once the belief becomes fleshed out and we assign purpose and values and meaning to God's intent, then we have something practical. And at that point, we also have the ability to provide more effective counter arguments against. If the God you believe in, created human beings, then there is now a claim that is concrete enough for us to evaluate. Is it reasonable to believe God created humans? Does our complexity prove a designer? Or do biological inefficiencies prove a random process? There is no need for this to turn into a debate human origins - I only mean to demonstrate the type of claim that would allow for a well thought out and reasonable counter argument and explain why 'God created everything' isn't such a claim.
If one could prove God exists, then the theist still has all of their work ahead of them (to paraphrase the late Chris Hitchens). Of what value is knowledge that God exists if we know nothing about God?
This of course would lead us into a different conversation and debate about whether or not Christianity (or any other religion) is true. And while the question of the existence of God is so absurd to me that I would abstain from even speculative guessing, the question of whether Christianity is true is quite different. And I can evaluate different claims and arguments for why Christianity is true and I can assign probability and arrive at cumulative likelihoods that the claims are true.
Because that is what they have been taught. It seems obvious to me. And not only that, but the specific God that people believe in is almost always the specific God they are taught to believe. Its learned behavior based on natural inclination for superstition.PabloSerna said:
To me the real question is why do people believe in God?
Do you believe that's true of non-believers as well? If not, why not?kurt vonnegut said:Because that is what they have been taught. It seems obvious to me. And not only that, but the specific God that people believe in is almost always the specific God they are taught to believe. Its learned behavior based on natural inclination for superstition.PabloSerna said:
To me the real question is why do people believe in God?
Your response comes across as dismissive and judgmental of those who believe in God. As if only the atheists and agnostics are able to transcend their background and come to a true intellectual understanding.
One could view it the complete opposite way, that the atheists and agnostics are so blinded by their experiences and life circumstances that they cannot see, or rather comprehend, the evidence that is so plain to so many.
Your position also ignores all of those who have changed their mind, such as those who were raised in an irreligious background but have come to believe in God, or those who were raised in one religious tradition and came to believe in a different tradition. Christian missionaries' spectacular success in changing people's learned beliefs and behavior is convincing evidence that your statement is fundamentally wrong.
The pattern of the background of most atheists and agnostics, of being raised in Christian backgrounds prior to coming to their "aha" moments, also shows the inherent flaw in your position. It shows that people are not slaves to what they were taught or to learned behavior.
Statistically you are extremely likely to reflect the beliefs you were raised with as an adult. Not just religion, but politics, economics, where you live, etc…. Even folks who stop being religious or move from irreligious to religious, typically reflect the culture and religion they left. A person raised Hindu who becomes an atheist is going to have a different perspective than a person raised Christian who becomes an atheist.
No question that's true, but to simply dismiss all believers as simply people following their culture is judgmental and intellectually lazy.Sapper Redux said:
Statistically you are extremely likely to reflect the beliefs you were raised with as an adult. Not just religion, but politics, economics, where you live, etc…. Even folks who stop being religious or move from irreligious to religious, typically reflect the culture and religion they left. A person raised Hindu who becomes an atheist is going to have a different perspective than a person raised Christian who becomes an atheist.
I could do my own 50 cent psychoanalysis on you skeptics, as well. Your disbelief is undoubtedly due to any number of environmental and emotional factors because it simply can't be due to correct intellectual analysis of the data. I've noticed that many atheists were raised in Christian environments, often even legalistic Christian environments. Typically, something bad happened to them in those environments causing them to start questioning everything. Skeptics of Christianity cannot see the evidence for it impartially because their perspectives are colored by those bad experiences they suffered while in the church.
In actuality, you have a point, but it's as true of skeptics as it is of believers. A prominent lecturer on the CLE (continuing legal education) circuit back in the 80s and 90s was a federal judge named Herbert Stern or something like that. He taught lawyers how to persuade. One of his key points was that no one, literally no one, makes decisions with their heads. He contended that everyone makes decisions first at the gut level and then defends their decisions with their head. His point was that trial lawyers ignore that lesson at their peril. That is, trial lawyers have to appeal to both judges and juries first at the gut level, and then and only then provide them with an intellectual basis for the decision that they've made or want to make.
I followed his advice and the impact on my courtroom results was profound.
Now that we realize that we are all creatures driven by emotion moreso than intellect, we should get back to the regularly scheduled programming, which is our never-ending arguments that do not seem to change anyone's mind.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Hmm…but to get to this point of your definition, one must go beyond where even you, yourself are comfortable, yes?
How does one know that 'God' or the Christian God is 'invalidated'? To not have experienced a feeling yet doesn't invalidate its truth, and I don't surmise that you'd claim to have experienced the fullness of all feelings, right? So how could anyone else posit that? Most of the claims are metaphysical and beyond invalidation to a great extent.
Doesn't it make more sense to simply allow that they didn't believe it originally and followed from there?
I do find your example of a blue sky prescient. Homer didn't see blue. There were and maybe still are tribes in Africa that didn't see blue. Scientists introduced them to it and now they can't unsee it. Was a 'blue' sky invalidated before it was revealed?
One thinks of the Christian god as invalidated the same way that I suspect you see Zeus as invalidated. A lack, on your part, of experience with Zeus does not invalidate him if he is truth. And as such, you can never really invalidate Zeus of any of the tens of thousands of gods and Gods.
But, as practical creatures, we all each have a long list of unfalsifiable things that we treat as though are invalid in our daily lives. Even though we can never disprove Zeus, we feel as though we are justified in treating this god as though he does not exist. Funny enough, Pascal's way of thinking would suggest to us that we should act as though Zeus is real, just in case, in order to avoid punishment for lack of worship (of whatever it is Zeus wants).
I can accept that some people, through application of Pascal's Wager type reasoning, come to a deep belief. At the heart of Pascal's argument though, he argues that we should believe because we fear punishment. And because we don't want to miss out on the prize. I don't place judgement on people to whom this argument is effective, only on the argument itself. I find the argument repulsive. It is shallow. It is belief for the wrong reason.
I am vaguely aware of the tribal groups that didn't see blue. Although, its is my understanding that it is more correct that the didn't have a word for blue and used a single word to describe a category of color that included some greens and blues. Once language is provided to differentiate the variations of color they previously thought of as one color, then those variations became distinct colors.
I am not an expert on the story. When scientists introduced them to blue did the tribes originally reject it as not being a different color. And did they eventually learn to accept the new color only by lying to themselves and pretending that they saw the new color until they had tricked their brain into believing the new color was there?
Pascal explicitly argues for people to lie to themselves, out of fear and in selfish hope for reward, so that they might eventually begin to believe the lie. Regardless of whether the thing is actually a lie or not. . . . come on. . . . .this is surely a problematic argument.
I'm not so sure your argument is engaging with the fullness of ours or Pascal's. It negates the evidence present in the worship and societies that grew up around a belief in Zeus and any dialogue between the two belief systems or discussion of claims, etc. like earlier posts that might assert I'm agnostic towards Zeus, it doesn't really capture the sentiment. It's akin to our argument that your morality or worldview did not exist in a vacuum but was informed by all that came before it. As Chesterton says, tradition is democracy through time.
That is to say, evidence is not limited to a dramatic poof of smoke and disembodied voice for your personal confirmation. He's not asking them to lie to themselves at all.
Regarding the tribes, no, blue was not something they simply didn't have a word for. You've forgotten my mention of Homer and his descriptions of things that are blue as 'wine' colored - this is not unique to Africa.
A side question: what would you consider adequate proof?
kurt vonnegut said:kurt vonnegut said:
It is belief for the wrong reason.
Adding to this: If there is a good and loving God that is worthy of our belief, then such a God deserves something better. Doesn't that God deserve something better than for people to believe in him from fear of what horrific things He would do to those that don't believe? Doesn't that God deserve better than the utilization of decision theory to determine the how best to minimize personal risk and maximize personal gain? Pascal's wager has nothing to do with love or sincerity and everything to do with 'how can I best manipulate the situation to my greatest benefit?'.
Many thoughts on this but the most basic is: have you talked to a two year old about why they shouldn't run into the street?
I don't mean for it to be dismissive. Regardless of the truth or non-truth of a religion, the biggest predictor for a persons religious beliefs is accidental. Its generally true for religious and cultural values. Its not an insult and it does mean that you aren't sincere in your belief or that you didn't sincerely choose your religion once you became old enough to do so.Jabin said:Do you believe that's true of non-believers as well? If not, why not?kurt vonnegut said:Because that is what they have been taught. It seems obvious to me. And not only that, but the specific God that people believe in is almost always the specific God they are taught to believe. Its learned behavior based on natural inclination for superstition.PabloSerna said:
To me the real question is why do people believe in God?
Your response comes across as dismissive and judgmental of those who believe in God. As if only the atheists and agnostics are able to transcend their background and come to a true intellectual understanding.
One could view it the complete opposite way, that the atheists and agnostics are so blinded by their experiences and life circumstances that they cannot see, or rather comprehend, the evidence that is so plain to so many.
Your position also ignores all of those who have changed their mind, such as those who were raised in an irreligious background but have come to believe in God, or those who were raised in one religious tradition and came to believe in a different tradition. Christian missionaries' spectacular success in changing people's learned beliefs and behavior is convincing evidence that your statement is fundamentally wrong.
The pattern of the background of most atheists and agnostics, of being raised in Christian backgrounds prior to coming to their "aha" moments, also shows the inherent flaw in your position. It shows that people are not slaves to what they were taught or to learned behavior.
And sorry to repeat the argument. . . but, had you been born in Afghanistan, there is a 99% certainty that you would be Muslim and would never de-convert or convert to Christianity. We are all products largely of our environment. I'm still a product my Christian upbringing and the culture that I live. It all very much informs who I am. Christians are no more slaves to what they are taught than anyone else.
Yes, it can absolutely be true for non-believers. I don't see anything about atheism or agnosticism as transcendent. We live in a unique time where its both socially semi-acceptable to not be religious and there is sufficient empirical data to question traditionally held ideas.
My position does ignore people that have changed their minds. . . . but that is a minority and I was speaking generally.
I don't think this analogy works at all.AGC said:
Many thoughts on this but the most basic is: have you talked to a two year old about why they shouldn't run into the street?
Jabin said:No question that's true, but to simply dismiss all believers as simply people following their culture is judgmental and intellectually lazy.Sapper Redux said:
Statistically you are extremely likely to reflect the beliefs you were raised with as an adult. Not just religion, but politics, economics, where you live, etc…. Even folks who stop being religious or move from irreligious to religious, typically reflect the culture and religion they left. A person raised Hindu who becomes an atheist is going to have a different perspective than a person raised Christian who becomes an atheist.
I could do my own 50 cent psychoanalysis on you skeptics, as well. Your disbelief is undoubtedly due to any number of environmental and emotional factors because it simply can't be due to correct intellectual analysis of the data. I've noticed that many atheists were raised in Christian environments, often even legalistic Christian environments. Typically, something bad happened to them in those environments causing them to start questioning everything. Skeptics of Christianity cannot see the evidence for it impartially because their perspectives are colored by those bad experiences they suffered while in the church.
In actuality, you have a point, but it's as true of skeptics as it is of believers. A prominent lecturer on the CLE (continuing legal education) circuit back in the 80s and 90s was a federal judge named Herbert Stern or something like that. He taught lawyers how to persuade. One of his key points was that no one, literally no one, makes decisions with their heads. He contended that everyone makes decisions first at the gut level and then defends their decisions with their head. His point was that trial lawyers ignore that lesson at their peril. That is, trial lawyers have to appeal to both judges and juries first at the gut level, and then and only then provide them with an intellectual basis for the decision that they've made or want to make.
I followed his advice and the impact on my courtroom results was profound.
Now that we realize that we are all creatures driven by emotion moreso than intellect, we should get back to the regularly scheduled programming, which is our never-ending arguments that do not seem to change anyone's mind.
I'm not sure who here is arguing that experience and perception and emotion don't influence their decisions and arguments. Everything you're saying applies to believers as well as nonbelievers. And your approach is a postmodern one. You're essentially arguing there is no objective truth and it's all a matter of narrative based on different interpretations of the same data/ situation / event.
AGC said:
A side question: what would you consider adequate proof?
I'll answer if you do the same - What evidence would you consider proof that there is no God?
Ignoring a semantic argument of whether anything can be proved, I can think of plenty of things that would convince me that I am wrong and that there is a God.
1. God could poke his head out of they sky and speak to mankind and let us know He exists and let us know of anything He wants us to know.
2. Every person, upon reaching the age of . . . . lets say 13 . . . would go to bed one night and receive the exact same revelation as everyone else telling the truth about God. Billions of revelations, all identical, and accessible to everyone.
3. An alien race could fly to Earth and demonstrate that they have a religion that is identical to one of ours.
4. Once humanity left Africa and found all corners of the globe - if every cultural had come to a similar understanding about God completely independently, that would be something impossible to ignore. This actually would convince me that God wrote his laws on our hearts. . . .
Given some more time, I think I could come up with more. And I understand that these scenarios seem far fetched, but consider the claim. The claim is that an all powerful, all knowing conscious being not only created existence and you and me, but is going to give infinite rewards to followers and infinite punishment for non followers. The magnitude of the claim requires so so so so much more than what is being offered. At least that is my opinion.
No I'm not. You're taking something I said and taking it to its extreme conclusion. I'm simply pointing out that you "enlightened" skeptics are no different than us mere believing peasants.Quote:
And your approach is a postmodern one. You're essentially arguing there is no objective truth and it's all a matter of narrative based on different interpretations of the same data/ situation / event.
And sometimes, albeit rarely, people are convinced by facts and logic that their emotional response may be wrong.
Jabin said:No I'm not. You're taking something I said and taking it to its extreme conclusion. I'm simply pointing out that you "enlightened" skeptics are no different than us mere believing peasants.Quote:
And your approach is a postmodern one. You're essentially arguing there is no objective truth and it's all a matter of narrative based on different interpretations of the same data/ situation / event.
And sometimes, albeit rarely, people are convinced by facts and logic that their emotional response may be wrong.
That works in both directions. People with no personal or emotional distress towards religion become agnostic or change religions all the time based on how they interpret the evidence.
Of course.
kurt vonnegut said:I don't think this analogy works at all.AGC said:
Many thoughts on this but the most basic is: have you talked to a two year old about why they shouldn't run into the street?
What do you use to teach your two year old when they can't conceptualize what you're talking about and the consequences are deadly? Whats the breakdown that keeps it an analogy instead of blowing it up into an allegory?
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
A side question: what would you consider adequate proof?
I'll answer if you do the same - What evidence would you consider proof that there is no God?
Ignoring a semantic argument of whether anything can be proved, I can think of plenty of things that would convince me that I am wrong and that there is a God.
1. God could poke his head out of they sky and speak to mankind and let us know He exists and let us know of anything He wants us to know.
2. Every person, upon reaching the age of . . . . lets say 13 . . . would go to bed one night and receive the exact same revelation as everyone else telling the truth about God. Billions of revelations, all identical, and accessible to everyone.
3. An alien race could fly to Earth and demonstrate that they have a religion that is identical to one of ours.
4. Once humanity left Africa and found all corners of the globe - if every cultural had come to a similar understanding about God completely independently, that would be something impossible to ignore. This actually would convince me that God wrote his laws on our hearts. . . .
Given some more time, I think I could come up with more. And I understand that these scenarios seem far fetched, but consider the claim. The claim is that an all powerful, all knowing conscious being not only created existence and you and me, but is going to give infinite rewards to followers and infinite punishment for non followers. The magnitude of the claim requires so so so so much more than what is being offered. At least that is my opinion.
Thanks for answering. We have a few problems though: all of these result in your own personal witness, no? Because if not, none of these are scientific or even rational in the sense that they can be explained, so why would you believe them if those who witnessed it told you about it? Or wrote it down to share later? It's kind of already happened.
For me, my standard is quite different. I factor in all of these things and my personal experience in a way that you can't (unless personal experience of such things can be measured). How would I 'unexperience' such things? You take the bounds of science and exclude the unexplainable while I take the bounds of science as limitations and grant the possibility that more may (and in this case does exist). I think mine is the more logical, as there is always the unexplained. I don't view knowing how something works to be the same as knowing why - we're not simply computers operating a program.
whatthehey78 said:
"I Am that I Am" - Exodus 3:14
Good enough for Moses...good enough for me!
If and when you get there, ask Him yourself.
It is not much of a detailed explanation but perhaps it is what we can currently comprehend.
AGC said:
Thanks for answering. We have a few problems though: all of these result in your own personal witness, no? Because if not, none of these are scientific or even rational in the sense that they can be explained, so why would you believe them if those who witnessed it told you about it? Or wrote it down to share later? It's kind of already happened.
For me, my standard is quite different. I factor in all of these things and my personal experience in a way that you can't (unless personal experience of such things can be measured). How would I 'unexperience' such things? You take the bounds of science and exclude the unexplainable while I take the bounds of science as limitations and grant the possibility that more may (and in this case does exist). I think mine is the more logical, as there is always the unexplained. I don't view knowing how something works to be the same as knowing why - we're not simply computers operating a program.
You are correct that none of those options would offer a scientific path for verification, but then again, we are supposing something outside of the ability for science to verify. I am trying to engage your question from the stand point of an existing God that is beyond natural.
Personal experience is still evidence. It just may not be evidence for the thing we think it is. A Muslim who experiences a personal revelation confirming the correctness of Islam is not proof that Islam is correct. But, that experience is still evidence that we might use to reasonably conclude something happened to that person. Maybe you think Allah spoke to that person, maybe you think the mind can manifest these experiences sub-consciously, and maybe you think its hallucination. But something happened, right? And this is all the problem with personal experience. Facts are not true or untrue based on personal experience - especially not something like the existence of God. Which takes me to option 2 from my post above
Option 2 is basically evidence for God through personal revelation. But, what is different about this option is that instead conflicting personal experiences about God, you have one singular and consistent experience. We would all experience is subjectively, and the accounts would have variation, but there is so much more to grab onto here then the literal billions of conflicting personal experiences we have now.
Personal experience is evidence. . . . but its very flawed evidence. See any number of psychology studies where it is demonstrated just how poorly we remember or understand our own experiences. Having God reveal himself to people through revelation . . . its about as reliable as trying to figure out what Alice in Wonderland is about by listening to hundred people that just watched it while high on magic mushrooms. None of its going to make sense and none of its going to match. . . but those people absolutely saw what they saw.
Also, I've read your last paragraph a couple of times and I don't see any explanation that might convince you that there is no God. As far as I can tell, because you cannot unexperienced things, your position is that you can never be convinced that you are wrong.
God cannot have a beginning and be God, he must be eternal, and outside of time.
The law of cause and effect requires there be something without a cause.
The law of non-contradiction God can't be eternal and have a beginning.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of our God being enterally begotten, not made.
You are mortal so your mind cannot grasp it, God is immortal.
You need an eternal God to forgive your sins because the effect of our sin is eternal.
The law of cause and effect requires there be something without a cause.
The law of non-contradiction God can't be eternal and have a beginning.
The Nicene Creed is a summary of our God being enterally begotten, not made.
You are mortal so your mind cannot grasp it, God is immortal.
You need an eternal God to forgive your sins because the effect of our sin is eternal.
I feel like I am poking a bear, however...
"4. Once humanity left Africa and found all corners of the globe - if every cultural had come to a similar understanding about God completely independently, that would be something impossible to ignore. This actually would convince me that God wrote his laws on our hearts. . . ."
I have heard the hardwired argument by smarter people than I. They point out that man throughout history has searched for something greater than himself. While I am sure some did so to control the masses, some really did believe in a force - what do you think?
"4. Once humanity left Africa and found all corners of the globe - if every cultural had come to a similar understanding about God completely independently, that would be something impossible to ignore. This actually would convince me that God wrote his laws on our hearts. . . ."
I have heard the hardwired argument by smarter people than I. They point out that man throughout history has searched for something greater than himself. While I am sure some did so to control the masses, some really did believe in a force - what do you think?
The problem with something so generic and different across time and culture as an impulse to worship is that it's hard to look at animism and Druids and Hindus and Isis worshippers and Zoroastrians and Christians and Taoists, etc, and say it's all the same deity that is placing the impulse. There are good naturalistic explanations from the world of evolutionary biology and psychology that can explain how a species of intelligent, pattern-seeking apes ascribed patterns that they did not understand the root cause of to something manipulating the pattern they did see.
PabloSerna said:
I feel like I am poking a bear, however...
"4. Once humanity left Africa and found all corners of the globe - if every cultural had come to a similar understanding about God completely independently, that would be something impossible to ignore. This actually would convince me that God wrote his laws on our hearts. . . ."
I have heard the hardwired argument by smarter people than I. They point out that man throughout history has searched for something greater than himself. While I am sure some did so to control the masses, some really did believe in a force - what do you think?
I think humans are hardwired to look for agency. I attribute the existence of religions to a more sincere effort to explain and understand rather than something as cynical as control. Religion can be used for control, but I don't necessarily think that is its origin story.
My main objection to the 'God's laws are written on our hearts' argument is that it ignores the fact in the absence of a specific religious teaching, humans do not develop consistent beliefs or religions. The argument would hold a lot more water if you could show tribes in the Amazon, Native Americans, Africans, Europeans, Asians, Pacific Islanders all developing similar sets of morals and beliefs completely independently of one another. Whatever is 'written on our hearts' is malleable - and can turn into sun worship, monotheism, or anywhere in between.
Also, I worry that the argument that the Christian God has written His laws on all of our hearts can be dismissive and insulting to the sincerity of non-Christians. The argument suggests that in our hearts we all know the Christian God is correct, but that most of us choose to ignore Him. If a Hindu poster came onto this board and told you that the Hindu gods had written their laws on your heart, that you KNOW Hinduism to be correct, but that you choose a life of sinful Christianity . . . . wouldn't you say they are being dismissive of the sincerity of your belief in the Christian God?
Creatures bound by the limits of time and space trying to comprehend a Creator not bound by these limits is a great explanation as to why our minds get blown when trying to understand the very beginning or an infinity with or without God.
I think the closest we get is having the infinite being (God) revealing Himself to us.
I'm convinced that He's done that through Creation and historically through prophets, His Son, and the Biblical text. I'm convinced that the evidence points to the Bible being the best explanation of our reality, our brokenness, why we speak different languages, why we sin and rebel, and the pain our sin causes one another.
While my mind is personally blown when contemplating eternity, I'm convinced that God has spoken the truth about His existence prior to creation due to the reliably of all of the other claims...
A God Outside of Time:
So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Zechariah 11 written ~520-518 BC
500 years later...
Now when morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus to put Him to death; 2 and they bound Him, and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate the governor. 3 Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
I think the closest we get is having the infinite being (God) revealing Himself to us.
I'm convinced that He's done that through Creation and historically through prophets, His Son, and the Biblical text. I'm convinced that the evidence points to the Bible being the best explanation of our reality, our brokenness, why we speak different languages, why we sin and rebel, and the pain our sin causes one another.
While my mind is personally blown when contemplating eternity, I'm convinced that God has spoken the truth about His existence prior to creation due to the reliably of all of the other claims...
A God Outside of Time:
So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Zechariah 11 written ~520-518 BC
500 years later...
Now when morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus to put Him to death; 2 and they bound Him, and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate the governor. 3 Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
I think that no matter your belief is there is always the "what was before that" question. Similarly as the layers of an onion is peeled there is another layer left to be peeled. Will we ever get to the last layer? Even if we find out the whole absolute "truth" doesn't that leave legitimate room for another question?
I grew up Lutheran but truly believed after college. I majored in Physics at A&M so it was challenging to be a Christian (not impossible but imagine the philosophy of those around me. In physics an acceptable answer on a test is not because of God.)
I became and remain a believer because I have experienced at least four unexplainable miracles. When I try to rationalize them I just can't.
For example, if you actively look for a wheat penny (<= 1956) in random change from a store what are the odds? On my birthday ~90 years after my fathers birthday this happened: My father had passed away 4 years earlier and it was (1 my birthday, (2 my wife looked closely at the change she just got at the dates of the pennies (she very very rarely did that. )3 one penny was a wheat penny and 4) the date of the penny was 1927 - the year my father was born.
What are the odds of all four happening? I suppose I could say that I hear a weed eater, today is the last weekday of the year, my heater and fan are on, and at 2:00 pm I haven't eaten anything yet. Coincidence?
I think the relative to great chance of the previous four events happened was higher than the last scenario.
Then there are two other miracles that are really mind-blowing. I have just accepted this as (2 at least) unexplainable miracles as the 2 miracles seem to have absolutely nothing to do with odds.
I think that to question at least 2 of the miracles would be ungratefulness for extremely helpful miracles. So I refuse to question 3 of the 4 miracles and the penny miracle could be just chance odds but seem very unlikely.
I grew up Lutheran but truly believed after college. I majored in Physics at A&M so it was challenging to be a Christian (not impossible but imagine the philosophy of those around me. In physics an acceptable answer on a test is not because of God.)
I became and remain a believer because I have experienced at least four unexplainable miracles. When I try to rationalize them I just can't.
For example, if you actively look for a wheat penny (<= 1956) in random change from a store what are the odds? On my birthday ~90 years after my fathers birthday this happened: My father had passed away 4 years earlier and it was (1 my birthday, (2 my wife looked closely at the change she just got at the dates of the pennies (she very very rarely did that. )3 one penny was a wheat penny and 4) the date of the penny was 1927 - the year my father was born.
What are the odds of all four happening? I suppose I could say that I hear a weed eater, today is the last weekday of the year, my heater and fan are on, and at 2:00 pm I haven't eaten anything yet. Coincidence?
I think the relative to great chance of the previous four events happened was higher than the last scenario.
Then there are two other miracles that are really mind-blowing. I have just accepted this as (2 at least) unexplainable miracles as the 2 miracles seem to have absolutely nothing to do with odds.
I think that to question at least 2 of the miracles would be ungratefulness for extremely helpful miracles. So I refuse to question 3 of the 4 miracles and the penny miracle could be just chance odds but seem very unlikely.
Some of us merely believe that as humans, we are incapable of knowing all things or understanding who created the infinite universe or how that Being did so. However, we also know from our own personal experience in life, that the Maker of this universe would absolutely have the ability to communicate with his creatures and to reveal himself to us as He deems fit. God introduced himself to many of us through the loving parents He blessed us with who taught us to know God as a loving heavenly Father who loves us and who answers our prayers. In times of trouble and need, those of us who have humbled ourselves and asked for God's help and forgiveness received miraculous answers to our prayers. Those who did not receive a loving upbringing that introduced them to their loving Creator and Savior and who refuse to humble themselves to pray for a loving relationship with Him will have great difficulty in finding truth and experiencing the love and joy that comes through knowing that the Creator of all things is close at hand and is eager to help us in all times of trouble. As our creator, it is also quite logical to assume that the Maker would want his creatures to acknowledge His existence and to benefit from a loving relationship with Him rather than for them to reject this reality and separate themselves from His loving care.
This thread reveals again the incredible intelligence and passion lurking on this on board. That applies to folks both sides of this issue! Bravo
For me, it's so personal I wouldn't expect my arguments to be but sounding symbols clashing in the ear (or eyes as it is read) but I'll throw in my thoughts anyway, perhaps as encouragement to some if nothing else.
I can contemplate. I did not create myself. I did not create my ability for contemplation. If something else created me, it created me with the ability to contemplate my creation and creator.
Whatever that creator is, in all it's mystery, is what I call God. Now, as others have so well pointed out, I contemplate the way in which this creator is revealed to me and leads me to where I am at today.
For me, it's so personal I wouldn't expect my arguments to be but sounding symbols clashing in the ear (or eyes as it is read) but I'll throw in my thoughts anyway, perhaps as encouragement to some if nothing else.
I can contemplate. I did not create myself. I did not create my ability for contemplation. If something else created me, it created me with the ability to contemplate my creation and creator.
Whatever that creator is, in all it's mystery, is what I call God. Now, as others have so well pointed out, I contemplate the way in which this creator is revealed to me and leads me to where I am at today.
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
PabloSerna said:
To me the real question is why do people believe in God?
This indeed is a profitable question.
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
The best way to move from the unknowable, clockmaker, creator God to the christian God is examining miracles. Its hard to cross the chasm between what science points to as an uncaused cause and actually having to wade through the various claims of 'gods' throughout the ages without examining miracles.
But miracles cuts through all of that. Who can do miracles, what are the miracles, and by whom do they claim the power to do miracles or the authority themself? One of the biggest questions pondered by the protestant circles I was in was 'do miracles still happen?' You'd chuckle at such a question from an orthodox perspective. Just read up on the lives of the saints, especially the modern ones. You'll see that God still works miracles every day in people's lives.
This is just a 'funny' one in the video below, but go read up on St. Lakavos, or St. Seraphim of Sarov. You'll walk away mindblown by how close these men were to God.
I've personally seen heavenly bodies worship Jesus during holy week, and another guy saw them too. One of the priests at our church has seen the icon of the Theotokos weep myrrh. And these are just footnotes compared to what saints have seen and done.
Come taste and see, liturgy is at 10 for whoever wants to join.
But miracles cuts through all of that. Who can do miracles, what are the miracles, and by whom do they claim the power to do miracles or the authority themself? One of the biggest questions pondered by the protestant circles I was in was 'do miracles still happen?' You'd chuckle at such a question from an orthodox perspective. Just read up on the lives of the saints, especially the modern ones. You'll see that God still works miracles every day in people's lives.
This is just a 'funny' one in the video below, but go read up on St. Lakavos, or St. Seraphim of Sarov. You'll walk away mindblown by how close these men were to God.
I've personally seen heavenly bodies worship Jesus during holy week, and another guy saw them too. One of the priests at our church has seen the icon of the Theotokos weep myrrh. And these are just footnotes compared to what saints have seen and done.
Come taste and see, liturgy is at 10 for whoever wants to join.
All this made me think of a joke, maybe you've heard it.
One day a scientist approached God declaring that humankind has finally figured out how God created humans from just dirt. He went to to brag how they have progressed so in knowledge that they can create a human specimen finer than anything God could create. He went on to brag that with gene selection and DNA knowledge, he could even create one to whatever desired specifications a person may want. Tall, small, muscular, one with endurance, black hair, red hair, whatever combination a person could dream up.
God graciously listened and then said, "Fair enough. How about a demonstration? Your creation against mine. I'll even go first."
The scientist agreed. God reached down, grabbed a handful of dirt, formed a fine looking human, then breathed life into it. God sat back, saying, "It was good. Your turn, scientist"
The scientist was not impressed and eagerly stepped up to out perform God. He reached down to grab a handful of dirt, to which God interrupted.
"No no no. You have to bring your own dirt."
One day a scientist approached God declaring that humankind has finally figured out how God created humans from just dirt. He went to to brag how they have progressed so in knowledge that they can create a human specimen finer than anything God could create. He went on to brag that with gene selection and DNA knowledge, he could even create one to whatever desired specifications a person may want. Tall, small, muscular, one with endurance, black hair, red hair, whatever combination a person could dream up.
God graciously listened and then said, "Fair enough. How about a demonstration? Your creation against mine. I'll even go first."
The scientist agreed. God reached down, grabbed a handful of dirt, formed a fine looking human, then breathed life into it. God sat back, saying, "It was good. Your turn, scientist"
The scientist was not impressed and eagerly stepped up to out perform God. He reached down to grab a handful of dirt, to which God interrupted.
"No no no. You have to bring your own dirt."
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
one MEEN Ag said:
The best way to move from the unknowable, clockmaker, creator God to the christian God is examining miracles. Its hard to cross the chasm between what science points to as an uncaused cause and actually having to wade through the various claims of 'gods' throughout the ages without examining miracles.
But miracles cuts through all of that. Who can do miracles, what are the miracles, and by whom do they claim the power to do miracles or the authority themself? One of the biggest questions pondered by the protestant circles I was in was 'do miracles still happen?' You'd chuckle at such a question from an orthodox perspective. Just read up on the lives of the saints, especially the modern ones. You'll see that God still works miracles every day in people's lives.
This is just a 'funny' one in the video below, but go read up on St. Lakavos, or St. Seraphim of Sarov. You'll walk away mindblown by how close these men were to God.
I've personally seen heavenly bodies worship Jesus during holy week, and another guy saw them too. One of the priests at our church has seen the icon of the Theotokos weep myrrh. And these are just footnotes compared to what saints have seen and done.
Come taste and see, liturgy is at 10 for whoever wants to join.
The EOC has interested me due to the many discussions on this board…maybe I should attend a service to check it out more….
one MEEN Ag said:
The best way to move from the unknowable, clockmaker, creator God to the christian God is examining miracles. Its hard to cross the chasm between what science points to as an uncaused cause and actually having to wade through the various claims of 'gods' throughout the ages without examining miracles.
The immediate problem I see with using miracles to move from 'god' to Christian God is that miracles are inherently not examinable.
As such, there is no agreeing on what is a miracle and what isn't a miracle without first sharing a common faith. And there definitely is no agreeing on the meaning, motivation, or purpose of a miracle without first sharing that common faith. There is danger of a circular feedback loop here whereby the meaning of the miracle justifies belief in the Christian God and the belief in the Christian God justifies belief that the miracle happened and happened with the proposed meaning.
If the point is to compare Christian miracles with miracles of other faiths or gods, then I don't know what this would prove. Maybe that you think Christian miracles are better or that they reflect a more moral God? Given that you are a Christian, that shouldn't be a surprise. It seems logical that Christian miracles confirm Christian beliefs and values and other faiths' miracles should reflect their beliefs and values. In other words, I think someone who has different beliefs and values might not agree that Christian miracles reflect correct moral positions.
However, some obvious problems with comparing Christian miracles with miracles from other 'gods' to conclude that Christianity is correct is that it skips over two very important assumptions:
1. that miracles occur / have occurred.
2. that miracles that may have occurred coincide, even roughly, with some known concept of God. In other words, maybe miracles happen, but are orchestrated by a God that is neither the Christian God, nor the Hindu gods, nor Allah, nor any pagan gods, etc. Your post does not account for a possibility that there could be a God that has not revealed itself to us.
In other words, I don't think miracles are a compelling pathway from 'god' to Christian God to anyone other than someone who already accepts a multitude of unproveable assumptions and has in fact already accepted the Christian faith. And I'm not poo-poo-ing faith. . . . But, if faith justifies faith justifies faith, we haven't established much of a foundation to go from non-belief to belief.
Come join. Can you PM me? Send me a burner email and I'll email you to get your contact info.
Featured Stories
See All
27:51
11h ago
5.7k
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
12:07
10h ago
12k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
1d ago
1.1k
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger