• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

God Is a Question, Not an Answer

Ada Lovelace

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers
Site Supporter
Jun 20, 2014
5,316
9,295
California
✟1,024,756.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Last edited:

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
  • Like
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0

chapmic

Follower of Jesus
Site Supporter
Sep 16, 2014
2,113
529
✟95,507.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I wholeheartedly disagree, Doubt and worry in general is not a good thing. I want to be free from doubt and worry, that is what following Jesus allows. Being in a relationship where you have to constantly worry and doubt if someone loves you is terrible and can drive anyone crazy.
 
Upvote 0

Spiribala

Active Member
Oct 11, 2015
102
33
38
✟15,719.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Some degree of doubt is good when in the life of a Christian. Certainly an honest discussion of what and why you believe is important. A faith should be living. We should be wondering how it applies to certain circumstances and relationships. And their certainly are good anti-Christian arguments that should make Christians pause and explore more deeply what it really entails to have faith in the modern age. However, I don't think it's helpful to question God himself, at least not permanently. Doubt can be helpful and can lead to growth in certain ways - but if that's truly the case and you're looking for growth, the doubt should give way to new conclusions about the nature of reality. If it doesn't, then you aren't really growing.

I believe staying in a doubting mindset for a lifetime would have negative consequences for people who consider themselves Christian. As a Christian, I'd like to think that many of my beliefs and actions are inspired and motivated by what I believe about God. Some of what I hope to do in the future include challenging things. One of the fixtures of Christian faith is the idea of sacrifice - that oftentimes serving God and serving man requires giving up creature comforts to help others. Sacrifice is difficult. It's difficult by definition. It can be brutally hard, because you're really, actually placing others above yourself. If you have a firm foundation in God, sacrifice, while still difficult, is feasible. Now you're confident in the true nature of reality, that pain and suffering are temporary, that God knows what suffering is like because he went through it all in the person of Jesus Christ, and that you're part of God's plan to bring peace to other people.

You're obviously a very talented person, just by virtue of getting into Stanford. Along with that, I'm sure, you were very motivated to get in. It, of course, never entered your mind that Stanford wasn't real. But let's say you weren't entirely sure. If you believed it was a 50/50 proposition that Stanford (or any elite college you applied to, or, for that matter, any of job or life prospect that doing well in high school could help with) could actually just be an imaginary place, would you have tried just as hard in school, or worked to create a comprehensive resume that showcased your accomplishments, skills and life experience? That's not for me to answer, but human nature suggests that would not have been the case.

College isn't a minor thing, but it also doesn't encompass all of reality. The question of getting into a desired college is minor compared with the huge implications - ethical, eternal and otherwise - that being a Christian (or vice versa) will end up having.

This type of article is always bit perturbing because it never even brings up the personal nature of the Christian God. It talks all about the search, but it's a pretty weak philosophy that just assumes that no one will ever answer! Much of the power of the Christian faith is in the idea that God became man and lived among us, doing all the ordinary things people do, and suffering even more than the ordinary among us will ever suffer. If that is the God we have, than God may answer us when we have questions, or he might just point us back to Jesus. But he certainly won't tell us to ask question after question ad on an endless loop. If so, one of the Biblical disciples would be referred to as heroically questioning Thomas. Instead he's portrayed in a negative light as doubting Thomas.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Well, one of the main reasons I don´t believe there´s a God is indeed: The existence of a God wouldn´t answer any of the questions that I have (albeit it may answer questions that I don´t have). So in a way I agree with the second part of the statement.
As for the first: If "God is a question", then what question is It? And whose question?

I must confess that, having read the introductory representations of atheism (the author writes as though atheism were an affirmative claim, i.e. he addresses strong atheism) didn´t exactly set me up to read particularly carefully through the entire article.
The subtitle "How can atheists and believers stop acting like enemy combatants in a spiritual or intellectual war?" shows that the author lives in a different world than I do. Where I come from believers of all sorts of religions are in friendly dialogue (CF isn´t real life).

Personally, I do have read various religious and spiritual works and looked into their practices - with interest and with great benefit. I found a lot of beauty in them. I was, however, at no point driven by the question "Does God exist?". It´s a totally boring and largely unimportant question to me (and it doesn´t get any more thrilling when God is a question).
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I wholeheartedly disagree, Doubt and worry in general is not a good thing. I want to be free from doubt and worry, that is what following Jesus allows. Being in a relationship where you have to constantly worry and doubt if someone loves you is terrible and can drive anyone crazy.


Very true!

Unfortunately, there are certain Christian religious denominations which tend to keep their members always doubting their status before God. Are we doing enough to please him? Are we perhaps holding back? The more that is done the safer or more approved the member feels. The less the member does the more insecure the member becomes.

My Bible teacher was fond of quoting a scripture in which he emphasized the word MAYBE!

" Seek righteousness! MAYBE! you will be saved in the day of God's wrath!"

Another scripture he kept quoting was:

"He who endures to the end will be saved!"

Yet another was:

"Let he who thinks he is standing beware that he doesn't fall!"

Such constant reminders, of course, sent me into a frenzy of activity in order to make that "maybe" which he kept constantly repeating far less likely.

So the peace that is characteristic of feeling saved or having one's sins automatically cancelled via Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice wasn't present there. Instead a peace based on the degree of one's efforts to please God took its place.

As for doubting in the existence of a creator, the Bible tells us that such doubts are inexcusable because nature provides resounding evidence that there is a creator.

Romans 1:
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chapmic
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
From the atheist point of view, asking if there is a God is a bit like asking someone if there is a Bigfoot.

If there was a Bigfoot, you would think they would have found some real evidence by now, but they haven't. Bigfoot appears to be, by all accounts, indistinguishable from a species that just doesn't exist. If evidence were found in the future, would that be pretty cool? Sure. I don't think anyone who disbelieves in Bigfoot is really against the idea of Bigfoot existing. However, Bigfoot believers that present bogus evidence and really bad arguments are worth confronting, especially if they are changing public policies based on their beliefs in Bigfoot.

Bigfoot really isn't a question that the Bigfoot believers are asking. They have decided to believe, and will continue to believe despite the lack of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There is this very serious misconception which impels many to draw a distinction between what theists believe and what naturalists believe. That misconception involves the idea that Naturalistic beliefs can be inferred via observation while theistic beliefs cannot.

That is totally untrue. Theists base their belief in life arising only from life based on an observable, compelling, repetitive pattern which justifies that inference and there is no other observable pattern which challenges that view because no other OBSERVABLE pattern exists.

The pattern which atheists propose to substitute in its place, abiogenesis, is totally absent in nature and cannot even be forced to occur in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Such a total absence of a natural observable pattern indicates that the process is unnatural and is being strongly resisted and rejected by nature because it has absolutely nothing in common with it. So calling it a natural process is inappropriate.

Similarly, the idea that a spirit soul resides in our body and separates at death also lacks objective, observable evidence and can be logically rejected. In contrast, the rejection of a the concept of a living entity as a source of all living things cannot.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
That is totally untrue. Theists base their belief in life arising only from life based on an observable, compelling, repetitive pattern which justifies that inference and there is no other observable pattern which challenges that view because no other OBSERVABLE pattern exists.

Then where do you think life came from?

The pattern which atheists propose to substitute in its place, abiogenesis, is totally absent in nature and cannot even be forced to occur in a laboratory under controlled conditions.

Where did you show that it can't occur?

Similarly, the idea that a spirit soul resides in our body and separates at death also lacks objective, observable evidence and can be logically rejected. In contrast, the rejection of a the concept of a living entity as a source of all living things cannot.

Burden of proof fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is this very serious misconception which impels many to draw a distinction between what theists believe and what naturalists believe. That misconception involves the idea that Naturalistic beliefs can be inferred via observation while theistic beliefs cannot.

That is totally untrue. Theists base their belief in life arising only from life based on an observable, compelling, repetitive pattern which justifies that inference and there is no other observable pattern which challenges that view because no other OBSERVABLE pattern exists.

The pattern which atheists propose to substitute in its place, abiogenesis, is totally absent in nature and cannot even be forced to occur in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Such a total absence of a natural observable pattern indicates that the process is unnatural and is being strongly resisted and rejected by nature because it has absolutely nothing in common with it. So calling it a natural process is inappropriate.

Similarly, the idea that a spirit soul resides in our body and separates at death also lacks objective, observable evidence and can be logically rejected. In contrast, the rejection of a the concept of a living entity as a source of all living things cannot.

If this is the case, you should be able to demonstrate your theistic beliefs, with verifiable facts.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Nothing to do with my statement.
You speak of my ability to offer a viable convincing explanation. I responded by saying that ability is relevant to the resistance it might meet. You can argue all day with someone who doesn't want to reason and despite your best efforts you will be deemed unable to back up your claims. It happens all the time both to theists and atheists. Purposeful irrationality is deployed as a counterargument. When i used to preach the Gospel long ago, I encountered this fellow who was an unbeliever. Whatever logical example I offered and sought his logical response, which I thought would be inevitable, he responded with nonsensical answers. When I finally stopped he smugly said:

"I bet you'll never forget speaking to me!"

He was right.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You speak of my ability to offer a viable convincing explanation. I responded by saying that ability is relevant to the resistance it might meet. You can argue all day with someone who doesn't want to reason and despite your best efforts you will be deemed unable to back up your claims. It happens all the time both to theists and atheists. Purposeful irrationality is deployed as a counterargument. When i used to preach the Gospel long ago, I encountered this fellow who was an unbeliever. Whatever logical example I offered and sought his logical response, which I thought would be inevitable, he responded with nonsensical answers. When I finally stopped he smugly said:

"I bet you'll never forget speaking to me!"

He was right.

What logical explanations did you offer?
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You speak of my ability to offer a viable convincing explanation. I responded by saying that ability is relevant to the resistance it might meet. You can argue all day with someone who doesn't want to reason and despite your best efforts you will be deemed unable to back up your claims. It happens all the time both to theists and atheists. Purposeful irrationality is deployed as a counterargument. When i used to preach the Gospel long ago, I encountered this fellow who was an unbeliever. Whatever logical example I offered and sought his logical response, which I thought would be inevitable, he responded with nonsensical answers. When I finally stopped he smugly said:

"I bet you'll never forget speaking to me!"

He was right.
It was decades ago when I was very young and I can only recall asking him if a train looked the same way regardless of the angle and distance from which it is viewed and he responded that it did. Two other examples of the same simple kind were offered and the response was always purposefully ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
That is totally irrelevant to the inference.

No, it isn't. You are claiming that your position uses observations as support for the origin of life. So what is it?

No need to. It's common knowledge.

It is a common claim made by creationists, but I have yet to see a single creationist back it with actual evidence. Please show us that abiogenesis can not happen as you claim.

True, the abiogenesis idea has absolutely no proof.

400 years ago, the atom idea had no proof. Not having evidence is not the same as something be false.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
You speak of my ability to offer a viable convincing explanation. I responded by saying that ability is relevant to the resistance it might meet. You can argue all day with someone who doesn't want to reason and despite your best efforts you will be deemed unable to back up your claims. It happens all the time both to theists and atheists. Purposeful irrationality is deployed as a counterargument. When i used to preach the Gospel long ago, I encountered this fellow who was an unbeliever. Whatever logical example I offered and sought his logical response, which I thought would be inevitable, he responded with nonsensical answers. When I finally stopped he smugly said:

"I bet you'll never forget speaking to me!"

He was right.

According to you, what is the origin of life? What are the observations that back it?
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
According to you, what is the origin of life? What are the observations that back it?
I am not a broken record or a machine that can e ordered to repeat myself interminably.
I have already stated my case many times on this forum. Asking me to repeat myself so that you can have target practice is an invitation I prefer to decline.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I am not a broken record or a machine that can e ordered to repeat myself interminably.
I have already stated my case many times on this forum. Asking me to repeat myself so that you can have target practice is an invitation I prefer to decline.

Where have you stated your case for the origin of life?
 
Upvote 0