How does one come to believe something?

[jimbohank]

By attempting to argue that Gd must fit into the scientific box.

The scientific box is a flawed one because it is constantly changing as man gains a greater understanding of the universe in which he lives.

Our understanding of nature and the universe today is vastly different than it was 100 or even 50 years ago. Thinks that we are fairly certain of today would have been considered crock pot, voodoo silliness 100 years ago.

Evidence of the creator is all around us but most reject it. To this day science has no clue what so ever as to what actually caused the spark of life to happen on earth.

No answer to the most basic questions like: Which came first, proteins or DNA? Some rush to panspermia as the answer but of course, all that does is push the question to space...RNA thought to be a possible answer only poses more questions with few answers.

Perhaps the problem lies with the concept that Gd has always been and will always BE.... a concept of eternal flies in the face of everything around us... which HAD a beginning and WILL have an end.

I agree. It is very interesting that "our logic" likes to place God in a scientific box. It is as though we are so arrogant to believe there is nothing beyond "our" logic. When you consider it from the other away around, all logic flows from God and will flow back to Him. If we take the "simple" concept of numbers, we see His perfect logic. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2 and though we as human's have invented negative numbers, fractions and even zero, logically those things can never exist. Everything falls out of the number 1, all math, all physics. I'm sure some may argue that we can have a fraction of something, like a piece of a sandwich or a 1/2 glass of water, but those concepts are there so we can understand our simple nature. But can we ever have a piece of matter or a part of a particle or molecule? If we take a piece of a sandwich, isn't it still 1 piece and a whole of itself? What about 0? can we ever have zero of anything? even if we break everything down to a string, we still have 1 string and if we have multiple strings do we not have at least 1 membrane? It is even in this that God's wonderful glory is revealed. I can understand the desire to delve into science to investigate things we don't know but at what point do we realize that all the answers we really need are given to us in God's Word?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can understand the desire to delve into science to investigate things we don't know but at what point do we realize that all the answers we really need are given to us in God's Word?

All the answers you need? Why are you on the internet then?

 

[jimbohank]

All the answers you need? Why are you on the internet then?

Not sure I understand your deep and perplexing question. Are you asking that if we can find everything in God's Word, why am I on the Internet?

 

[lumberjohn]

I can understand the desire to delve into science to investigate things we don't know but at what point do we realize that all the answers we really need are given to us in God's Word?

Really? Then why did we not have a remotely accurate concept of the germ theory of disease until science took on the issue? Point out where in "God's Word" this explanation resides and why none of the great theologians ever stumbled upon it. Or perhaps this wasn't one of the answers we really needed? Perhaps God just really wanted billions of people to suffer horribly and die tragically of diseases that science could have eradicated. Given your preference of dispensing with science and returning to God's word as a universal panacea, is that what you would prefer?

 

[lumberjohn]

By attempting to argue that Gd must fit into the scientific box.

The scientific box is a flawed one because it is constantly changing as man gains a greater understanding of the universe in which he lives.

Why would you choose the analogy of a box, especially given your views on science? A box is closed on all sides. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out. It is static and unchanging.

But as you have pointed out, science is the exact opposite of these things. It is open to new information. It is willing to change hypotheses and theories that do not correspond to new evidence. It adapts to provide ever greater understanding and approximations of the truth. This is exactly what provides its strength.

The far better analogy to a box would be religion.

 

[jonesdon]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

======= As Donnie come lately, let me know if my thought has already been discussed. I'm not going to read 185 posts!

So, I guess we need to start w #1 -- the primary premise. No, we don't come to belief by only evaluating evidence. Should it be so easy! Evidence can be supporting, but, basically, I see that belief in God is the starting point -- and the most positive choice (my 1st premise)! Others (secularists & atheists) have chosen "no God". And, see where this takes you -- a few for starters:

1) less (or no) hope for justice not done on earth, 2) having the need to get all we can here & now (need for our heaven on earth) -- as there's no "tomorrow" (afterlife), 3) no hope for happiness after a difficult life (or sinful life) -- we just turn to dirt, 4) need for Big Brother w/o oversight from Big Daddy (God).

BTW: For ahead, more than just Christians believe in God!

 

[jimbohank]

Really? Then why did we not have a remotely accurate concept of the germ theory of disease until science took on the issue? Point out where in "God's Word" this explanation resides and why none of the great theologians ever stumbled upon it. Or perhaps this wasn't one of the answers we really needed? Perhaps God just really wanted billions of people to suffer horribly and die tragically of diseases that science could have eradicated. Given your preference of dispensing with science and returning to God's word as a universal panacea, is that what you would prefer?

Sorry you miss understood. I didn't say anything about "dispensing with science"? It's interesting that you concluded that from my statement. I did not say that science is obsolete but that science itself shows the glory of God. But of course I can understand the need for some to question the perfect logic of God's Word and I don't blame you for that. I could argue that if Adam and Eve never ate the fruit that God requested them not to eat then there would be no need for "germ theory" or disease to be concerned about. But I can't expect the blind to instantly see what they have never seen or even attempt to see. I am bankrupt of that power and only God can open the eyes of the blind. But to answer your question about my statement, what I said was "at what point do we realize that all the answers we really need are given to us in God's Word?" If our eternal soul is eternally important than regardless of whether we die of disease or in a car crash or even of old age, His Word, in my opinion, is really all that is important.

 

[unno-Dey]

Peopl

I do not consider that evidence is the major part for belief in Christ, but I would say love is. God's call leads those who want to have faith, people return to God and get faith not because someone gave them complicate explanations and arguments, evidence or answers, but because they saw in Him that light, joy, profoundness, seriousness and most importantly, love, are the only things that reveals God's presence in the world.

People find abstract qualities in many things, including pets and hundreds of different religions and family. These ideas mean nothing objective. Also, in Bible times (and in modern times) God supposedly revealed Himself in multiple objectively measurable ways.

 

[jimbohank]

Why would you choose the analogy of a box, especially given your views on science? A box is closed on all sides. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out. It is static and unchanging.

But as you have pointed out, science is the exact opposite of these things. It is open to new information. It is willing to change hypotheses and theories that do not correspond to new evidence. It adapts to provide ever greater understanding and approximations of the truth. This is exactly what provides its strength.

The far better analogy to a box would be religion.

All science, though, is contained within God. Nothing is ever invented or "created" by man but only revealed as possible within what He has already created. Was a wheel created by man or was the concept of a wheel already possible but revealed to man? What about fire? did man create fire or was it revealed on how to create and contain it?

 

[lumberjohn]

But to answer your question about my statement, what I said was "at what point do we realize that all the answers we really need are given to us in God's Word?" If our eternal soul is eternally important than regardless of whether we die of disease or in a car crash or even of old age, His Word, in my opinion, is really all that is important.

Suffering children = unimportant. Got it.

 

[lumberjohn]

All science, though, is contained within God.

Sounds like God is the box.

 

[lumberjohn]

So, I guess we need to start w #1 -- the primary premise. No, we don't come to belief by only evaluating evidence. Should it be so easy! Evidence can be supporting, but, basically, I see that belief in God is the starting point -- and the most positive choice (my 1st premise)! Others (secularists & atheists) have chosen "no God". And, see where this takes you -- a few for starters:

1) less (or no) hope for justice not done on earth, 2) having the need to get all we can here & now (need for our heaven on earth) -- as there's no "tomorrow" (afterlife), 3) no hope for happiness after a difficult life (or sinful life) -- we just turn to dirt, 4) need for Big Brother w/o oversight from Big Daddy (God).

So what justifies using belief in the Christian God as the "starting point"? Why not belief in the gods of the Hindus or the Romans or that cult that popped up last week in Peoria? Or, better yet, why not take a neutral position, waiting until the evidence supporting each can be evaluated? This is what atheists do. You haven't made a compelling argument for a different approach.

As far as I can see, your reasons are entirely prudential. But unless you have a personal genie at your disposal, reality does not conform to your wishes or desires.

 

[jimbohank]

Suffering children = unimportant. Got it.

Why is it that frustration of atheists with God has to automatically go to the idea of suffering children? Those children have already inherited the kingdom of God yet you don't seem to mention those of us that are not children any more but stumbling about, lost and swimming in the filth of the world we desire. Do you honestly think an almighty all loving God wants anyone or any thing to suffer? "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) We are responsible for all of that suffering, not Him. Here is a question for you, if man were to never interfere with nature, would we need to be concerned about things that would cause people to suffer? How many deadly bacteria, viruses, diseases are the direct result of man's ignorance and rebellion? How about ALL. It is easy to be lazy and not take ownership of our own filth and then blame God and then in the next breath to hypocritically say we don't even believe in Him. What is ironic is that we debate these things but yet we don't even pursue the idea of His existence let alone try to recognize the things around us that prove His glory every day. Very sad.

 

[jimbohank]

Sounds like God is the box.

I would say sphere but how can an eternal and infinite God be such a thing? If God has no boundaries then what is within Him has no boundaries.

 

[BukiRob]

I wouldn't say there is 0 question that any particular person from antiquity lived. Our ancient sources aren't reliable enough for that type of certainty. They are especially bad when it comes to Jesus. The evidence of even his existence is pretty poor. I'd say there's about a 60% chance there was a historical Jesus whose life corresponds in any significant way with the Gospel accounts. There is a significant amount of debate on this question by critical scholars. Read up.

Utterly false... there is actual significant reliable historical sources outside of the bible that make it crystal clear that no serious academician questions that he in fact lived.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I am DEEPLY and WELL versed in this topic. Sources from Pliner the Younger, Tacitus, Lucian, The Babylonian Talmud, Josephus....

Arguably the single most powerful piece of evidence is Rome itself. Rome conquered Israel in 63 BC Jerusalem was the outer backwaters of the empire held no cultural significance, no great wealth or import as it pertained to Rome... yet for inexplicable reasons within 200 years of Messiah's death Rome was quickly being converted to Christianity. Why would Rome a pagan empire whose religions were pantheistic in nature suddenly and inexplicably convert to a sect of Judaism?

No, the supposition that Yeshua didn't live is so illogical that it defies any semblance of logical analysis to come to such an absurd conclusion. Especially given that the penalty for such a thing was DEATH.

Finally there is the Apostles themselves. It is not difficult to find those who will die for a cause that they believe to be true but is false. You WILL NOT FIND a group of men who will die for a cause that they KNOW to be false... one perhaps if he is nuts, possibly two.... but 12? Never.

As I have said, anyone who opens this topic with an HONEST search who is willing to let the facts led where it takes them quickly comes to the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming... Yeshua was was the Son of Gd....Was killed on a tree (cross) for the Sin of all mankind, died and was PHYSICALLY resurrected from the dead.

 

[BukiRob]

I would say sphere but how can an eternal and infinite God be such a thing? If God has no boundaries then what is within Him has no boundaries.

Gd is Spirit and is not bound by this Universe. He is infinite and everywhere at once. Knows all, see's all nothing is hidden from him... He has no beginning and no end. To try and understand Him in human terms is an exercise in futility

 

[BukiRob]

Suffering children = unimportant. Got it.

You don't understand the concept of free will, got it.

Gd is DEEPLY grieved at the blood that is shed of the innocent. Gd granted to man a free will. Choose Gd or reject Him.... when mankind rejected Gd and chose his own way he was given over to his nature. Man has both the inclination to do good and the inclination to do evil.

You realize that you are doing the same thing that Adam did when Adonai confronted Adam and Eve for disobeying Gd? Genesis 3:
10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.


Adam blamed Gd in that the woman Gd gave him caused him to sin...

You do the same when you try and blame Gd for suffering children. Tell me WHO is causing the suffering? Man or Gd??

IT IS MAN not Gd who is to blame.

 

[jimbohank]

So what justifies using belief in the Christian God as the "starting point"? Why not belief in the gods of the Hindus or the Romans or that cult that popped up last week in Peoria? Or, better yet, why not take a neutral position, waiting until the evidence supporting each can be evaluated? This is what atheists do. You haven't made a compelling argument for a different approach.

As far as I can see, your reasons are entirely prudential. But unless you have a personal genie at your disposal, reality does not conform to your wishes or desires.

Isn't that for you to conclude? All we can do is point. It is your and journey to seek. I would say others are here to help point you in the right direction but some people just cannot deal with blind faith and must make their own mistakes and deal with their own pain to find the answers. The Case for a Creator, a Book by author Lee Strobel is a great place for an atheist to start considering Lee Strobel was one and spent years as a journalist seeking the truth.

 

[jimbohank]

Gd is Spirit and is not bound by this Universe. He is infinite and everywhere at once. Knows all, see's all nothing is hidden from him... He has no beginning and no end. To try and understand Him in human terms is an exercise in futility

Exactly, it would be foolish to even try...but yet there are those who do and put all of humanity in the cross hairs of their desire to be God or be like God, the same God they claim doesn't exist. At what point does vanity give way to truth?

 

[lumberjohn]

Do you honestly think an almighty all loving God wants anyone or any thing to suffer?

God either directs the suffering or allows it to happen. If you are all powerful, you get what you want.

Here is a question for you, if man were to never interfere with nature, would we need to be concerned about things that would cause people to suffer?

Yes.

How many deadly bacteria, viruses, diseases are the direct result of man's ignorance and rebellion?

None. Well. . . maybe the ones that cause the zombie apocalypse.

How about ALL.

Um, what? Please show your work.