Is Christianity worth serious consideration

[3sigma]

Because God is beyond logic and reason.

First, Joe, thank you for your detailed answer. However, if your God is beyond logic and reason then isn’t belief in your God illogical and unreasonable? In which case, is it worth serious consideration? Are the demands of Christianity worthy of deference or respect when they are not based on logic and reason?

And yet that does not disturb my faith in God because once I was able to open my heart to Him, He showed Himself to me. There were no chemistry sets or logical proofs involved. If you want to know God, you have to learn to think in another language besides that of science and reason.

I think this is the crux of the matter and is something not many religious believers are willing to admit. It appears that the basis for their belief is an emotional response that is not based on any logic, reason or sound evidence. It seems that when religious believers speak about the heart they mean emotion instead of reason. Their experience of their God is a purely subjective feeling that is entirely generated by their own minds and that has nothing to do with reality. Of course, that means that miracles don’t really happen and prayers aren’t really answered. People just convince themselves that those things are due to their God. It also means that your God didn’t really create anything and all those stories in the Bible that rely on your God’s existence are just make-believe.

 

[3sigma]

I know what it means for an argument to be logically valid. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence being logically valid and having true premises.

Go back and read some of the posts from Christians in this thread. They are using arguments as evidence.

It does seem that you assume a priori that only physical things exist. We could perhaps debate that some time, but now isn't a convenient time.

I’d prefer that you answer the question here. If you are going to argue that your God exists then it stands to reason that you should define what you mean by ‘God’ (what constitutes it) and what you mean by ‘exists’ (in the physical sense or some other yet to be verified sense). So please answer the questions. What constitutes your God; is it matter, energy a force or something else (if so then please define this something else and show us that it is possible for it to exist)? Please define what you mean by ‘exist’; do you mean real or imaginary existence?

 

[joeshlatbonk]

If your God is beyond logic and reason then isn’t belief in your God illogical and unreasonable? In which case, is it worth serious consideration? Are the demands of Christianity worthy of deference or respect when they are not based on logic and reason?

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? For a thing to exist, is it necessary that it can be perceived through the senses? It seems you would say yes, whereas I would say there are things that exist which are not of the physical world. And for something to be true, must it also be logical? There again we disagree. I would not accede to your equating "beyond logic" with illogical. If you believe that everything is subject to logic, than something that is not logical would be illogical. But I believe that logic is only a tool of human intellect which when compared to the infinite nature of God is rather puny. Thus I say God is beyond logic.

If one's worldview is that everything that can be known can only be known through the scientific method, empirical evidence, logic and reason--well, then that is one's worldview. But how did you come by this way of thinking? Did you just sort of grow up with it in the atmosphere, and so you accepted it; or, did you come to truly believe in this worldview only after you had given it a fair amount of consideration? If you say you believe in science and reason because it is more rational and there is evidence of it than any other worldview--well, that would be like someone saying they believe in God because it is more religious than any other worldview.

And may I make the caveat that I only speak for my own personal, vaguely Kierkegaardian conception of Christianity. I'm sure there are those who would not be so willing while defending God to cede the foothold of rationality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not to be nitpicky but "circle" is a 2D word that describes a 2D shape. The correct word would be sphere or ball.

Or pearl, if used in a parable?

Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm no scientist but the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first made the claim, some not even until this century.

Good post, Suzy! Here are three of my favorites:

1. The universe is expanding. ---

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

(The first part of that verse could be a reference to the Cosmic Microwave Background, but that would be a guess on my part.

2. Submarine ocean currents.

The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

3. The Internet.

Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

 

[3sigma]

For a thing to exist, is it necessary that it can be perceived through the senses?

Not necessarily, but it would at least have to be detectable in some objective way for it to be reasonable to believe it exists, otherwise you are just imagining it exists.

And for something to be true, must it also be logical?

‘True’ means being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Is it true that your God exists? Is that in accordance with the actual state of affairs? If so then where is it? What constitutes your God? Is it matter, energy a force or something else?

If one's worldview is that everything that can be known can only be known through the scientific method, empirical evidence, logic and reason--well, then that is one's worldview. But how did you come by this way of thinking?

I didn’t. That isn’t my view. However, I think that if you want to claim that your God exists and affects the natural world in some way then one can use the scientific method to investigate that claim. Does your God affect the natural world in any way, for example, by performing miracles or answering prayers? Has that claim been investigated using the scientific method? What were the results?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not necessarily, but it would at least have to be detectable in some objective way for it to be reasonable to believe it exists, otherwise you are just imagining it exists.

Like love?

 

[KCDAD]

Like love?

Yep.

 

[joeshlatbonk]

So I had sez: "If one's worldview is that everything that can be known can only be known through the scientific method, empirical evidence, logic and reason--well, then that is one's worldview." Den 3sigma sez:

That isn’t my view.

Then what other ways do you accept that something can be known by? Because you've dismissed knowing God by feeling it in one's heart, or having an intuition about it, or simply believing on faith as amounting to nothing more than an emotion or imagination. You say that it is only reasonable to believe when presented with objective proof of it, but in that respect we don't agree on the basic terms of the argument. I am not one of those people who would say that the truth of the Christian God and religion is subjective, but I do think it is an objective truth that can never or virtually never be affirmed by anything but the subjective experience of it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Like love?

Love the Light.......Hate the darkness......REPENT!

1 John 2:11 The-one yet hating his brother, in the darkness is, and in the darkness is about-walking, and not he has perceived whither he is going, that the darkness hath-blinded the eyes of him

Reve 16:10 And the fifth one pours out the bowl of him on the throne of the beast, and became the Kingdom of it having been Darkened and they gnawed the tongues of them out of the misery.

 

[3sigma]

Then what other ways do you accept that something can be known by?

What is within a person’s imagination is known to that person subjectively. Certainly, we could see that the person’s brain is active in certain areas using fMRI, for example, but we cannot see what the person is imagining. However, a person’s imagination does not have an objective, independent existence. The thoughts themselves do not exist outside the person’s mind. The thoughts themselves cannot affect the natural world. The person can affect the natural world, but that’s the physical person not the internal thoughts.

However, if by the word ‘everything’ in your original question, you didn’t really mean everything, but only those things that have an objective, independent existence then I can’t think of a way to confirm the existence of those things other than through the scientific method, empirical evidence, logic and reason—at least minimally applied. Do you think that you can confirm the objective, independent existence of something that affects the natural world solely by feeling it in your heart, in other words, by an emotion, with absolutely no empirical evidence or reason applied at all?

Now that I’ve answered your question, perhaps you could answer the questions that you ignored in that previous post of mine. Is it true that your God exists? Is that in accordance with the actual state of affairs? If so then where is it? What constitutes your God? Is it matter, energy a force or something else? Does your God affect the natural world in any way, for example, by performing miracles or answering prayers? Has that claim been investigated using the scientific method? What were the results?

If you cannot confirm that your God exists then is it reasonable to hold beliefs that depend solely on that unsubstantiated claim? Are those dependent Christian beliefs worth serious consideration? Are associated Christian demands worthy of deference or respect?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Joe ---

Just out of curiosity, is your name taken from JOE SHLABOTNIK in the Peanut's comic strip?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Shlabotnik#Joe_Shlabotnik

 

[joeshlatbonk]

AV1611VET--Keen perception there. Yes, way back in the mid to late nineties when I started to get on the internet and had to think up usernames I was somewhat of a Peanuts fan and got in the habit of using a misremembered variation on the name of the hapless Joe Shlabotnik.

Now that I’ve answered your question, perhaps you could answer the questions that you ignored in that previous post of mine. Is it true that your God exists? Is that in accordance with the actual state of affairs? If so then where is it? What constitutes your God? Is it matter, energy a force or something else? Does your God affect the natural world in any way, for example, by performing miracles or answering prayers? Has that claim been investigated using the scientific method? What were the results?

Yes, it is true that God exists. His existence is, as you put it, in accordance with the actual state of affairs. He is not any "where" per se, as He transcends space and time. He created space and time, either as described in Genesis, or, if you're one like me who is willing to put a bit of trust in science and accept that some of the Bible's truth is true in a metaphorical rather than literal sense, as described by the idea of the Big Bang. The architect is not the building. Having said this, I think it should naturally follow that God is not constituted of anything in the sense I think you mean it--matter, energy, a force. These are all things of the physical world that can be identified or observed by science. As C.S. Lewis would put it, He is more like a Mind than anything else with which we have firsthand experience with on earth. And this is to say a mind as it would be understood by the philosophical standpoint of mind/body dualism in which the mind has some existence independent of the body, that it is something more than neurons firing in the brain. But moreso than that the exact nature of God is one of those things I take to be vastly beyond the scale of human comprehension. Though I expect to have a better idea of those sorts of things after I snuff it, so long as I keep the faith and live in a manner that doesn't deverge too much from what one would hope to see from someone of faith.

Having said all that about God on some fundamental level beyond space and time, he is not the God of Deism; in addition to having created the natural world he intervenes in it. As to the relationship of this intervention to the scientific method...to simplify the matter somewhat and not type a lot in a rambling way: to scrutinize the intervention of God in the physical world with the scientific method is like trying to weigh a watermelon with a ruler, or find the length of a football field with a scale. The scientific method can determine the how of physical phenomena, not the why. Science can describe a tree and tell you how a tree came to be a tree, but why is the tree? This, I realize, is a bit of a silly, small example but the same thing applies to the creation of universe. Science can say how, science cannot say why. That's not a flaw of science, that's just the scope of science.

If you cannot confirm that your God exists then is it reasonable to hold beliefs that depend solely on that unsubstantiated claim? Are those dependent Christian beliefs worth serious consideration? Are associated Christian demands worthy of deference or respect?

Honestly, I find this to be a hot mess of faulty premises and vague language.

 

[3sigma]

Yes, it is true that God exists. His existence is, as you put it, in accordance with the actual state of affairs. He is not any "where" per se, as He transcends space and time. He created space and time, either as described in Genesis, or, if you're one like me who is willing to put a bit of trust in science and accept that some of the Bible's truth is true in a metaphorical rather than literal sense, as described by the idea of the Big Bang

I’m sorry, but I’m not so credulous that I would believe these bare assertions without some sound, objective evidence to support them. I don’t suppose you have any sound, objective evidence to support any of these bare assertions, do you? If so, could you please provide it? Please demonstrate that your assertions are true.

Having said this, I think it should naturally follow that God is not constituted of anything in the sense I think you mean it--matter, energy, a force. These are all things of the physical world that can be identified or observed by science. As C.S. Lewis would put it, He is more like a Mind than anything else with which we have firsthand experience with on earth. And this is to say a mind as it would be understood by the philosophical standpoint of mind/body dualism in which the mind has some existence independent of the body, that it is something more than neurons firing in the brain.

Again, it would be helpful if you could provide some sound, objective evidence to support these claims, please? Could you also please explain how it is possible for a mind to create the universe, perform miracles and answer prayers? You say your God does these things so could you please explain how that is possible? What mechanism or process is involved? Please demonstrate that your claims are true.

But moreso than that the exact nature of God is one of those things I take to be vastly beyond the scale of human comprehension.

Oh, so now you say that no one can know what constitutes your God. But you just gave what you claimed to be a description of what constitutes your God. You said it was like a mind. How can you possibly know that if it is vastly beyond human comprehension? Was that just speculation and assumption with no evidence to support it? If not, please demonstrate that your claim is true.

Having said all that about God on some fundamental level beyond space and time, he is not the God of Deism; in addition to having created the natural world he intervenes in it.

Please provide some sound, objective evidence to support this claim. Please demonstrate that this claim is true.

As to the relationship of this intervention to the scientific method...to simplify the matter somewhat and not type a lot in a rambling way: to scrutinize the intervention of God in the physical world with the scientific method is like trying to weigh a watermelon with a ruler, or find the length of a football field with a scale.

Forget the analogies and similes; they explain nothing. Please explain why it is impossible to measure or even detect your God in any way.

The scientific method can determine the how of physical phenomena, not the why. Science can describe a tree and tell you how a tree came to be a tree, but why is the tree? This, I realize, is a bit of a silly, small example but the same thing applies to the creation of universe. Science can say how, science cannot say why. That's not a flaw of science, that's just the scope of science.

Oh, okay, then please tell me the why. What does it even mean to say, “Why is the tree?” That doesn’t even make sense. Why is the tree, what?

Honestly, I find this to be a hot mess of faulty premises and vague language.

Which premises are faulty? What is it you find vague? Please tell me and I’ll reword my questions so that you can answer them.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I’m sorry, but I’m not so credulous that I would believe these bare assertions without some sound, objective evidence to support them.

Any sound, objective evidence would probably be considered a systematic defense of the Christian belief system.

I don’t suppose you have any sound, objective evidence to support any of these bare assertions, do you?

Christians can't post anything like that here. It's against the rules.

If so, could you please provide it?

Sorry. We can't.

Please demonstrate that your assertions are true.

Please don't try to bait us into violating the rules.

 

[DerSchweik]

Everyone,

Please review the Forum Specific guidelines for posting in this forum. Specifically:

Exploring Christianity FSG's
Exploring Christianity Forum
This is a forum where non-Christians are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christians can enter into discussion with them on these questions.

We recognize that real seekers are looking for real answers, and the first reply given may be insufficient to achieve this. It is acceptable for the Original Poster (OP) to probe the answers given, and to continue the discussion on lines which help to clarify their understanding of the Christian faith. If another non-Christian seeker wishes to ask questions about the Christian faith, they may start their own thread. No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.

All Original Posts (OPs) -- the posts that start a new thread -- must contain an identifiable question about the Christian faith. Questions and statements that are direct flames or that imply a flame against Christianity, Christians, or any other group are inappropriate to this site, and will be removed.

The following guidelines apply, in addition to, or as clarification of, Christian Forums rules.

Some posts have been deleted for review per the above.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hmm.....Guess that means I ain't under the gun now....

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmm.....Guess that means I ain't under the gun now....

Just watch it next time, or I'll report you ---

 

[DerSchweik]

Again, some posts have been deleted for review.

This thread, per the FSGs, is for the OP to ask questions and query Christian responders/responses. If other non-Christian seekers wish to ask a question, please start another thread with your question.

 

[Ganymede]

Hmm.....Guess that means I ain't under the gun now....