I'm losing it

[Harry3142]

Paradoxum-

What you have described is what has been called 'the dry period'. For one reason or another the connection with God seems to have been lost, and we're left wondering what happened. I went through it myself several years ago (I'm 66 years old now).

But at the other end of that dry period the faith comes back with a force far beyond what it was before we entered that period of our lives. We are more assured of what we believe in, and we are more confident in our having the faith that sustains us. It's as if we had to hit bottom in order to proceed higher in our spiritual nature than we were before.

I suspect that you are now in that dry period. It will pass, and your faith will be even stronger than it was before you entered it. In the meantime, have confidence that even though you do not feel as if you have hold of God, or even the concept of there being a God to hold on to, God still has a firm hold on you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is unless your philosophy is very simple... s**t happens and you can't understand it.

Well, yes s**t does happen and affects each of us in different ways; often it can throw us into cognitive dissonance, especially over the “God question.” Although, I don’t think I would call the recognition of hardship a form of philosophy, at least not an academic form of it. Philosophy usually denotes the act of evaluating the qualities of some entity, whereas to mentally recoil from bad experiences is probably more of a psychological reaction than a form of evaluation.

In some ways, I kind of expect s**t to happen. This probably differentiates me a bit from a lot of Christians in my area because many of them are fed the line “Expect a Miracle” on a daily basis by church leaders here. In my estimation, it is difficult enough to deal with unexpected hardships in life without someone also telling us to heighten our expectations to miraculous levels. That just sets us up for even more severe disappointment when we get dinged by life.

But yeah, some atheists do seem to be happy and unafraid of death, don't you think?

Yes, some atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett for instance, seem to be quite relaxed with the knowledge that they will have to face their own eventual demise. Unfortunately, I get the sense that they would be quite relaxed with the idea of my eventual demise as well, which is a bit unnerving to me. I heard that Christopher Hitchens just passed away—I wonder how much peace he felt as this was coming on. Anyway, I pray God with have mercy on him…I really do.

Why do you continue to believe, very simply?

Well, Para, I will attempt to supply a “simple” answer, but with one qualification, that you understand that my giving of a “simple” answer by no means implies that such an answer really offers a substantive response to our consideration of things religious or Christian. To me, a “simple answer” is the next closest thing to a negligible quip, and I am committed to the view that life and the existence of the universe in general is much too complex to be accurately reflected by any form of reductionism. But since you have asked for “simple,” by which I think you mean you want me to go for the jugular artery of my apologetic attempts, or to perhaps provide a silver bullet to kill the beast of disbelief, I will do my best to provide at least my most concise core response possible. So, here it goes, for whatever significance it could have:

If, at the end of the day, atheistic notions dominate and permeate my mind, (which they often do), and I look out upon what appears to be a hard, cold, disinterested world, and my cognitive apprehension allows me to feel only “meaningless nothing, nothing, nothing…,” then, after those notions blanket my emotions like a black snow for some length of time, I eventually find myself beginning to ponder something else, quite unintentionally in fact--that as I peer out onto the meaningless of the universe, I encounter the presence of not only myself, but the presence of a persistent question in my mind, “why does anything exist…at all?” And since the concept of a multi-verse just doesn’t cut it for me, I grab some milk and cookies, find my favorite chair, and crack open the New Testament.
​

So there you have it, an answer given “very simply.” Almost anti-climactic, isn’t it? No private epiphanies, no angel choruses filling the room, and no Heavenly lights springing down from above. Probably not very inspiring to you, is it? Of course, there is much more to my belief than this mere “tip of the iceberg.”

I'm open to God coming to be my reason, evidence or even religious experience. I don't have any particularly well thought out theory of knowledge though. I guess my first commitment is accepting what science 'knows'. After that all I can do is try to be careful with my reasoning.

Well, I’m glad you’re open to “reason, evidence, or even religious experience.” And I appreciate your honesty about not having a theory of knowledge worked out. Probably most of us don’t, but we can at least work on studying the various ways to understand the concepts of knowledge and truth, even as they may apply to science. As for you, might this little situation have a bearing on the extent to which you “commit” yourself to accepting what science “knows”? Perhaps a little Philosophy of Science is in order, Para? Have you studied NOS (the Nature of Science)?

 

[Paradoxum]

I might add to your last post re science. Science further & further explains the mechanics of our fallen universe & should be part of our general understanding of its material side. We can apply this towards whatever we do with our knowledge according to the will of God (by following His basic commandments as best we can). To find good preaching & discussions re faith & science I would recommend searching the website of Ravi Zacharias: Welcome to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

I read most of a book by him a few years ago. About meaning or something like that, I don't really know. He's pretty interesting when I have heard him on youtube before. I don't really have too much of a problems with conflicts of science and faith. The person I read on this subject is Keith Ward.

Also look for examples of educated Christians who are in the world & making differences like Doctors on this website:

Home

There is much negative propaganda in the secular media trying to portray Christians as often superstitious types & clearly this is faulty. May God truly bless you in keeping faith in focus & in furthering your education.

I agree. You get superstitious atheists too.

Good. I think then what you are referring to as your loss of faith is more your coming to the conclusion that much of what you have been told from preachers and teachers of Christianity is not true. If that is the case, we are alike. I have come to the conclusion that much of what is taught under the banner of Christianity is garbage. I consider myself still a Christian, although I would think a more accurate description of my present theology is Christian Agnostic. In my opinion this state of coming to the conclusion that many of the so called orthodox Christian ideas are false, is the natural result of becoming a thinking person. I think you should not let it disturb you too much, as long as you continue to believe you exist for a reason that transcends this physical existence and that you have a destiny of life and not death.

Its not just that some of the Christian beliefs I was brought up with are wrong. Its also that I am losing faith in a personal God, and I don't care too much for a deist God. I would like to believe there is life beyond death, but it seems most sadly reasonable to me to think that the mind is produced by the brain, and the brain is mortal. On the other hand is solves the problem of what a good afterlife would be like.

I think this is fairly self-evident. For example, consider what a person does when they decide to sit in a chair they've never seen before.

I've heard and used the chair example before

The apostle Paul links knowledge and faith quite explicitly in his writing:

2 Timothy 1:12
12...for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

For Paul the process of faith was: knowledge>belief>action - as it should be for every follower of Christ.

But is it a knowledge you can prove?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well, yes s**t does happen and affects each of us in different ways; often it can throw us into cognitive dissonance, especially over the “God question.” Although, I don’t think I would call the recognition of hardship a form of philosophy, at least not an academic form of it. Philosophy usually denotes the act of evaluating the qualities of some entity, whereas to mentally recoil from bad experiences is probably more of a psychological reaction than a form of evaluation.

Your right that it isn't a proper philosophy, but it can sum up a philosophy, that stuff happens, so stop thinking about it and live for tomorrow we die. Something similar is expressed at the end of Candide I do believe. I'm not saying that it my philosophy... I'm an optimist naturally.

Yes, some atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett for instance, seem to be quite relaxed with the knowledge that they will have to face their own eventual demise. Unfortunately, I get the sense that they would be quite relaxed with the idea of my eventual demise as well, which is a bit unnerving to me. I heard that Christopher Hitchens just passed away—I wonder how much peace he felt as this was coming on. Anyway, I pray God with have mercy on him…I really do.

Well if there is a God I believe He is a good and just God.

Well, Para, I will attempt to supply a “simple” answer, but with one qualification, that you understand that my giving of a “simple” answer by no means implies that such an answer really offers a substantive response to our consideration of things religious or Christian. To me, a “simple answer” is the next closest thing to a negligible quip, and I am committed to the view that life and the existence of the universe in general is much too complex to be accurately reflected by any form of reductionism. But since you have asked for “simple,” by which I think you mean you want me to go for the jugular artery of my apologetic attempts, or to perhaps provide a silver bullet to kill the beast of disbelief, I will do my best to provide at least my most concise core response possible. So, here it goes, for whatever significance it could have:

I like how you call me Para

I asked for a simple answer because I don't want to have to read an essay and because I have heard alot of different Christian view points before, so I might not need a full explanation for me to know what you are talking about.

If, at the end of the day, atheistic notions dominate and permeate my mind, (which they often do), and I look out upon what appears to be a hard, cold, disinterested world, and my cognitive apprehension allows me to feel only “meaningless nothing, nothing, nothing…,” then, after those notions blanket my emotions like a black snow for some length of time, I eventually find myself beginning to ponder something else, quite unintentionally in fact--that as I peer out onto the meaningless of the universe, I encounter the presence of not only myself, but the presence of a persistent question in my mind, “why does anything exist…at all?” And since the concept of a multi-verse just doesn’t cut it for me, I grab some milk and cookies, find my favorite chair, and crack open the New Testament.
​

Well I follow up until you talk of the multiverse. I also use the words hard, cold, black, meaningless, nothing, to think about the atheistic universe. It also leads me to ask why something rather than nothing, and what-how is consciousness. The multiverse can seem like a cheap get out of explaining why this universe is like it is, but the mathematics does say it is possible and so I don't want to reject it as it could be real. The multiverse doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing though.

​

So there you have it, an answer given “very simply.” Almost anti-climactic, isn’t it? No private epiphanies, no angel choruses filling the room, and no Heavenly lights springing down from above. Probably not very inspiring to you, is it? Of course, there is much more to my belief than this mere “tip of the iceberg.”

What if there can be no explanation in our lifetime for why something? Feel free to explain more why you think there is a God if you wish.

Well, I’m glad you’re open to “reason, evidence, or even religious experience.” And I appreciate your honesty about not having a theory of knowledge worked out. Probably most of us don’t, but we can at least work on studying the various ways to understand the concepts of knowledge and truth, even as they may apply to science. As for you, might this little situation have a bearing on the extent to which you “commit” yourself to accepting what science “knows”? Perhaps a little Philosophy of Science is in order, Para? Have you studied NOS (the Nature of Science)?

[/QUOTE]

Epistemology sounds rather boring and unanswerable to me. If you have a theory where you can't have false knowledge then it would seem we know nothing, or at least very little. Of course I haven't read much about the subject so I could be wrong. When I say science knows something I mean it is probably true. I don't exactly speak with precision all the time.

It is reasonable to accept certain scientific theories as fact though.

 

[hedrick]

It's not just why there is something and not nothing. It's the rather odd character of the something. Why does is the universe described by mathematics? Why does there seem to be a rational structure? These questions are only suggestive, but I think they're real.

The deist image (which I take to mean that there is a God but he doesn't get involved with us) doesn't seem like one that makes a lot of sense. Why would a god create all of this if he didn't care? He may choose to interact only selectively, but a really hands off god doesn't seem likely.

I have real reservations about philosophy. The speculative approach doesn't seem to stack up very well once science comes along in an area. However there's one idea in the old arguments for God's existence that may be hard to avoid. The idea was the God is necessary. At the bottom of the chain of dependency, there's got to be something that just is. It's not very satisfying for that ground to have lots of possibilities. That is, if the current physical universe is ultimate, the "fine tuning" problem is very serious. The multiverse is a possible answer to that, but to be satisfying, a multiverse wouldn't be able to have lots of arbitrary parameters. In the end it should be something simple enough that it's reasonable to feel that if anything is going to exist, it has to be this.

But the real question seems to be whether that ultimate is personal or not. Now I think the real reason people believe in a personal ground for existence is because of experiences with God, whether our own or from the community and Scripture. But I have a problem with the concept of an infinitely old system that's completely impersonal. I think we need to assume that the multiverse, or whatever else the current universe came out of, is infinite. The idea of everything just popping up one morning seems non-credible. It's got to have popped up in some context that makes popping possible. At least for me. So let's assume there is some system beyond our universe, whether the 11 dimensions of string theory or something else. It's a system out of which universes come. It's hard to think that this system would be lifeless.

Let me give a proof by contradiction. Suppose the ultimate system is lifeless. I claim that a system that's rich enough to spawn universes should spawn life. I mean, our own system managed to self-organize in a few billions years to produce intelligence. You'd think that larger system would do so. But by the properties of infinity, intelligence has to have been there all along. Suppose it wasn't. That means there's a time T before which there is no intelligence. But no matter how long it takes intelligence to form, it's still finite, call it I. SInce the universe existed at time T - I, by time T intelligence must have been there. But there's nothing special about time T, so this is true for all times. Thus intelligence must have been part of this ground system all along. That doesn't say much about what it is. It could be a series of intelligences of finite lifetime. But somehow that seems unsatisfying as well. Over an infinite time, infinitely powerful intelligences would develop. You can run a similar argument by contradiction to show that there's no limit to how great the intelligence would be.

You could say that even if I've shown that there is an infinite intelligence there, this isn't God because it evolved from a lifeless system. However that's not my point. This is a proof by contradiction. It shows that it is not possible to think of the base system as ever having been lifeless. Furthermore, I'd argue that over time any infinite intelligence would take responsibility for the system in which it resides. But again, given the properties of infinity that means that the ground system has always been under the control of its infinite intelligence.

As long as the ground system is infinite, I think it's got an infinite intelligence as part of it. None of this is airtight. I can see some gaps in my arguments. But still, I think it makes sense to think of the ground of existence as being intelligent. And I find a deist one hard to believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your right that it isn't a proper philosophy, but it can sum up a philosophy, that stuff happens, so stop thinking about it and live for tomorrow we die. Something similar is expressed at the end of Candide I do believe. I'm not saying that it my philosophy... I'm an optimist naturally

Para, I agree with you that the view and lifestyle of Aristippus’ “Cyrenaic Hedonism” can “sum up a philosophy,” and that “it isn’t a proper philosophy.” From what I can tell, Voltaire’s Candide probably does insinuate the pessimism that leads some people into hedonism. One of the most unfortunate consequences for people who do end up following in Aristippus’ footsteps is that they probably don’t achieve a happy, stable life in the here and now, despite all their temporal pleasure hunting. Have you ever seen the movie, “The Libertine”? (If you haven’t seen it, it is an adaptation of the life of John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester, as played by Johnny Depp). I think it is a good example of what happens to those who push the limits of hedonism and ungodliness—the results can at times remove any earthly consolation or optimism to be had.


It is this specific philosophy that, as you know, the Apostle Paul quickly quotes and critiques in Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:32) as he defends the legitimacy of our hope in a risen Christ. I’m glad to hear that pessimistic hedonism is not your ‘cup of tea’—that instead you’re an optimist and that you haven’t left behind all those elements of a principled life that you mentioned in an earlier post to one of the other members here. Yeah…do yourself a favor and persevere in that, sister. I say this because I’ve interacted with enough atheists while earning my academic degrees to know that they often slide downhill morally if given enough upset and enough time, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

Well if there is a God I believe He is a good and just God.

Ditto here.

I like how you call me Para.

Well, it allows me to feel like I’m talking to a sister rather than a c*y*b*e*r* - e*n*t*i*t*y, and still respect your anonymity, which I’m sure that you, like me, usually want to keep intact.

I asked for a simple answer because I don't want to have to read an essay and because I have heard alot of different Christian view points before, so I might not need a full explanation for me to know what you are talking about.

I understand that you want a concise answer—no one wants their time to be wasted on a forum by a bunch of yahoos. And I see that you too have a degree(s), so in respect of your obviouis intelligence, I’ll do my best to make the assumption that you’re mostly “up to speed” on various theories, and so forth. J

Well I follow up until you talk of the multiverse. I also use the words hard, cold, black, meaningless, nothing, to think about the atheistic universe. It also leads me to ask why something rather than nothing, and what-how is consciousness. The multiverse can seem like a cheap get out of explaining why this universe is like it is, but the mathematics does say it is possible and so I don't want to reject it as it could be real. The multiverse doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing though.

Para, I purposely made the quick quip about the multiverse to simply take us to that point of discussion without all the didactic explanation; and from your response above, you show that you are definitely up to speed here. J Nice.

What if there can be no explanation in our lifetime for why something? Feel free to explain more why you think there is a God if you wish.

Well, if may very well be that, at least from a scientific point of view, we may never get the kind of explanation many of us long to have. I surmise that you’ve already learned from your own reading that most scientists are ‘methodological naturalists,’ and that they believe that science cannot pierce the veil of the Divine. On the other hand, there are ‘philosophical naturalists,’ a minority group of scientists, who feel that science bears directly upon, and even impinges upon, the “God question” (Scott, 2004, pp. 50-51; Ward, 2008, p. 71). This latter group is represented by persons like Richard Dawkins and Steve Weinberg.


Why do I think there is a God? Well, another reason (again this is not exhaustive) is that as I read and research atheistic literature (and I’ve got over a dozen such books), I catch the professional atheists making a number of exaggerations and twisting the evidence and Scriptures to fit their agenda, much in the same way that some Christians do for their denominational agendas. However, I do understand atheists’ gripes about some abuses from within the religious ranks.


An additional reason is that the world we live in is one in which seems to reflect what the Bible says about sin and tyranny--if it were actually true. If the Bible said that sin existed in the world, but then world actually had a very high level of peace and harmony, then I would be suspicious that the Bible was somehow not in touch with reality.

As I see it, one underlying problem with attempting to establish some kind of explanatory credibility for Christianity is that that God may have presented us with evidence, but it is not the kind of evidence that we, in a scientifically enlightened world, now appreciate. Rather, it is a form of evidence that was pertinent two-thousand years ago, but now seen as being primarily deficient (i.e. legal, historical, theological testimony). Furthermore, I think the problem of faith today is exacerbated by a definition of religious belief that construes the definition of faith as “belief without ANY evidence.” I think that is a conceptual stereotype that is foisted upon the Scriptures, leading to a straw-man argument and getting frequently fronted by anti-Christians, due partially to their irritation from Christianity, and partly from unwillingness to become proficient in the field of hermeneutics. So, certain definitions of “faith” get culled from the New Testament, and interpreted in a tight, ultra-literal, and hyper-fundamentalist (overly simplistic) way, and then dashed to the ground, with an accusative finger and a “see, see, see…told you so” attitude—as if there are absolutely no plausible alternative interpretations (or more accurate ones) that could be articulated.

Epistemology sounds rather boring and unanswerable to me. If you have a theory where you can't have false knowledge then it would seem we know nothing, or at least very little. Of course I haven't read much about the subject so I could be wrong. When I say science knows something I mean it is probably true. I don't exactly speak with precision all the time.

It is reasonable to accept certain scientific theories as fact though.

Well, I don’t know of any epistemological theory, other than that involving relativism, succinctly stating that “you can’t have false knowledge.” Pragmatism comes close, but it still has a test for what is useful and not useful. Epistemology may ‘sound’ boring, but it is actually very relevant and important to the whole enterprise of truth and/or knowledge, especially in science and philosophy. I think The study of epistemology tis analogous to learning to type on a keyboard for a job that requires data processing. If a person doesn’t learn to type on a keyboard, then they are going to have a hard time trying to interface with the the ‘system’ and produce the work that is needed to be done.


So, Para, what do you feel might be the crux of your atheism at this time?
Does it center on the mind-brain/duality problem, or something else?


Best Wishes,

2PhiloVoid

(I'll begin writing shorter replies next time, if you wish to continue the conversation.)

References​

Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ward, K. (2008). The big questions of science and religion. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm going to respond to a lot you've said but first, go back and read post #21 again. As is so often the case, Harry posts what the Lord speaks to my heart.

I am losing the will to keep fighting for a faith that has so many problems.

Faith has problems and they go deep

If there is a God, where is he?

I love the principles of Christianity. Love, forgiveness, liberation, mercy, grace, fighting for the poor and oppressed, selfless giving. Christianity has a lot of hope

Para, you are a good person with a beautiful heart. Why should you suffer this angst? Post #21 doesn't answer that question directly, but it points you in the right direction. What you need to be doing, is finding out what G-d intends for your "dry spell," or desert crossing. Luckily G-d actually LOVES us, and doesn't make us guess about such important things!

Israel left Egypt to worship G-d in the desert, on the way to the Promised Land. You're not in the Promised Land yet; perhaps your heart yearns for the 'cucumbers and onions' of Egypt, like the Israelites did? The old life of sin is dead to you. It doesn't hold what others get out of it, for you. You and I can go through those same motions and come away empty, while others are fine with it.

So what will clear away your apathy, so you can gather your manna (Jesus is the hidden manna, and the true bread from heaven) morning and night as the Israelites did, so that G-d will sustain your Faith as He did theirs?

FAST.

No way around it. You need to cry out to G-d for His reality, just as if you were literally starving to death and dying of thirst in a desert. It's really not so hard to do, because it's TRUE! Read your OP again in this light to see what I mean. This is exactly where you are.

if only it would help the poor in spirit and money, rather concern itself with what adults do in their bedroom. Such things are to petty and below what the church should aim for, like world peace and eradication of poverty.

Good message! Imagine what G-d can do with you, within your circle of influence, with you "on fire." (That fire is up to HIM, btw )

These things are all well and good, but God is still merely an ideal.

No no NO!! He is not made in our image, nor some archtype of our own conscience! He exists and is alone the only One who is self-sufficient to exist. And He is a rewarder of she who diligently seeks Him. Some of our ideals may reflect Him accurately, but we need to be willing to let go of our own ideals as He causes us to grow; that's part of the growth process. Our own ideals are not G-d! If they become our god, it is an idol.

Oh, I do agree with you. I know love is more than a feeling. A loss of feeling and a loss of belief that someone exists does tend to dent that commitment over an extended period of time though.

And this is where prayer and fasting come in. Look how aligned you are already:

"Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as [ye do this] day, to make your voice to be heard on high. (Isaiah 58:5) Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? [is it] to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes [under him]? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD? [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward. Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I [am]. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; And [if] thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness [be] as the noonday: And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not."

Come now Para, let us reason together. You're a bright girl; THIS is what you want! This IS "the desire of all Nations." And yet for all the Glory in this promise, it is not yet the Promised Land ...

what do you believe faith should be based on?

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST! Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, how one goes from knowledge of a Deistic type "G-d who exists" to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ AND us, is a very personal journey. And please don't be offended, but regardless of your past this is a journey you have not yet completed. You ARE en route though! Like it or not. You should be honest with G-d, that you want a breather from the trek. Not to go off into the wilderness to die, but maybe a little water? He is merciful; you need to entreat those mercies:

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:16)

I've never really liked the fatalistic elements of Christianity. I am open minded though... mostly.

May I suggest these come from hard sayings, that you have not yet plumbed the depths of? And that what the Spirit signifies by them, aren't the fatalistic concepts you've grasped so far? It is hunger for these deeper Truths that is what gently prods us on, sometimes ...

Why do you continue to believe, very simply?

She that endures to the end, shall be saved.

"now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: (1 Peter 1:7) That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls."

Its not just that some of the Christian beliefs I was brought up with are wrong. Its also that I am losing faith in a personal God, and I don't care too much for a deist God. I would like to believe there is life beyond death, but it seems most sadly reasonable to me to think that the mind is produced by the brain, and the brain is mortal. On the other hand is solves the problem of what a good afterlife would be like.

We do NOT have to wait for Eternal Life, but can partake of it NOW!

But is it a knowledge you can prove?

Yes. (See my last statement.) You can prove it to yourself, and share it with others. You and I will NOT be able to somehow "prove it" to someone else who chooses to reject Christ. This sharing it with others part is often a substantial part of our own proof:

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us"(Hebrews 12:1)

 

[aiki]

But tell me, what do you believe faith should be based on?

I responded to this question by explaining how faith is - usually - based upon knowledge to some degree. In response you simply say,

I've heard and used the chair example before

So, then, why ask the question? If you're aware of the connection between knowledge and faith, why ask what faith should be based on? Were you expecting me to suggest it should be based on nothing?

The apostle Paul links knowledge and faith quite explicitly in his writing:

2 Timothy 1:12
12...for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

For Paul the process of faith was: knowledge>belief>action - as it should be for every follower of Christ.
​

But is it a knowledge you can prove?

You didn't sound like you were particularly interested in an answer to this sort of question in your OP. You wrote:

I don't need to hear the gospel, popular apologetics or an emotional plea. Strangely I find the idea of blind hopefully faith to be a stronger incentive to believe in God than all the reasons and evidences I have ever heard of.

I can prove (to my satisfaction, anyway) the knowledge I have of God. I could offer you several excellent philosophical arguments, but it sounds like you would likely be at least somewhat familiar with them. Maybe what might be more of value to you at this moment would be my personal witness to the reality of God, not in the philosphical sphere, but in the daily experiential realm. God answers my prayers; He fulfills His promises given to me in His Word; He empowers me to change, not just external behaviour but heart attitudes and inclinations; He blesses, and teaches, and disciplines me; He provides a single, stationary, objective reality that anchors everything I think and believe and do. Even in the face of grave doubts about my faith, there has always been an unshakeable core-level certainty about God and His interest in me. Even when I have encountered reasons that seemed initially to justify completely denying God, I could not shake Him. He has been quite inexorable in His relationship with me. He has shown me that He is far more than just an idea or concept to defend. God exists and He and I interact daily.

Really, if this were not true, if God could not be experienced as a living reality, what point would there be in living as a Christian? If God were merely a philosophical construct, He would not be worth living or dying for. But God is real; He can be known personally. My life is a testament to this fact.

Selah.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

"Believing and not," I don't remember that option of not. I remember believing, never the not as far back as I can remember. As I got older, I started to see the wisdom of following him; but yet before, I didn't do that. I have had miracles and unnatural things happening every so often. Some of which, I have constantly remembered God by and thanked him for his protection of the ones that I love. Faith with me has always been real as God is, but following him has been a struggle. I had all sorts of faults, shames, desires, lusts and so on that I wanted more than God. How could I have gone the way that I did? My flesh was in control of me. I didn't believe in Jesus and his teachings, but yet knew that he was right. I chose the world over Jesus, and so, went to the bottom of shame and sin before finding the wisdom towards obeying righteousness and following Christ.

I must have believed in Jesus as early as I can remember, for I remember speaking up to an adult teacher at church telling him that I wanted to be a Martyr for Jesus. I was 5 or 6 years old.

I really don't understand all the hype towards emotions of love to God, yet doubting him later, as though it was all just an emotional bounce. Nothing that I have read even comes close to God and especially his son Jesus. As I got more serious about the wisdom of living righteously and following Jesus, I could finally follow what I believed in and have assurance in my heart of his ways. I have had people to try to veer me to the left and right of faith, but my checking things out have strengthen my personal relationship with God. I am less confused and have a straight path built upon faith in Jesus.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by elman
Good. I think then what you are referring to as your loss of faith is more your coming to the conclusion that much of what you have been told from preachers and teachers of Christianity is not true. If that is the case, we are alike. I have come to the conclusion that much of what is taught under the banner of Christianity is garbage. I consider myself still a Christian, although I would think a more accurate description of my present theology is Christian Agnostic. In my opinion this state of coming to the conclusion that many of the so called orthodox Christian ideas are false, is the natural result of becoming a thinking person. I think you should not let it disturb you too much, as long as you continue to believe you exist for a reason that transcends this physical existence and that you have a destiny of life and not death.

Its not just that some of the Christian beliefs I was brought up with are wrong. Its also that I am losing faith in a personal God, and I don't care too much for a deist God. I would like to believe there is life beyond death, but it seems most sadly reasonable to me to think that the mind is produced by the brain, and the brain is mortal. On the other hand is solves the problem of what a good afterlife would be like.

I agree that a deist God does not make sense to me. It is the same bottom line as no Creator at all to me. I don't find it reasonable to assume we exist as an accident of nature. It makes more sense to me that an intelligent entity wanted us to exist and that is why we exist. We cannot immagine what the afterlife is like because we have no frame of reference to draw from, so we see as through a dark glass, as Paul would say. We can strain to see now, but we will only see clearly later.