Why doesn't God reveal himself in a logical, evidence-based manner?

[Captain Thunderpants]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

 

[drich0150]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

Why do you believe He has not done this?

Christianity is center around a book that has shown this to be the case. It's just in the subsequent centuries New "logic" has been developed to refute what has been provided.

For those who do not want to believe God always gives them an out. This is made apparent by the skepticism of the Pharisees in light of the miracles Christ performed.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

Why do you believe He has not done this?

I've been repeatedly told that Spirit (whatever that may mean), and not knowledge, is what leads one to an understanding of God, along with some lines of scripture that goes along the lines of that God shall turn the wisdom of the world into folly, or some such.

Besides that, I haven't personally seen a logical argument for God that is free of fallacies. Theism is overwhelmingly rejected as fact by the scientific community for lack of evidence. Organizations with theistic agendas have repeatedly tried to introduce various theistic ideologies into the classroom under the guise of evidence-based science, but have been soundly rejected by court decisions even when the judges were creationist Christians themselves. All of these indicate to me that, for reasons unknown, there has been no attempt or effort made by God to show himself via methods based on logic and reason. Am I mistaken?

Christianity is center around a book that has shown this to be the case. It's just in the subsequent centuries New "logic" has been developed to refute what has been provided.

I can't say I agree this is the case. The story of a man who was his own father and born of a virgin, whose life account is filled with logical and narrative inconsistencies despite the writers supposedly being divinely inspired, whose divinity was in fact hotly contested before being settled by vote three centuries after his death, whose name (and whose disciples) does not appear in the writings of any non-secular historians of that period despite the fact that we have enough of their remaining works to fill entire libraries, the fact that the ending of the Gospel of Mark was tampered with, and a range of other reasons, causes the Bible to not strike me as particularly logical and reasonable evidence for God.

And, as you've mentioned, there has been new "logic" in subsequent centuries developed that refutes the Bible. The consensus seems to be that the Bible doesn't stand up very well to scientific scrutiny.

For those who do not want to believe God always gives them an out. This is made apparent by the skepticism of the Pharisees in light of the miracles Christ performed.

Judaism puts forward very a convincing case against Christ in my opinion. I'm not sure about Islam, but I'd imagine that the Muslims have their own apologetic arguments as well. Putting us atheists aside; even for those who believe in God, it seems that Christianity doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

Which of the works of Christian philosophy did you read before you decided that there is no logical or reasonable support for the existence of God?

I can't say I agree this is the case. The story of a man who was his own father

The Bible never says anything about Jesus, who I presume you're talking about, being His own father.

whose life account is filled with logical and narrative inconsistencies

Such as...?

whose divinity was in fact hotly contested before being settled by vote three centuries after his death

Actually, it was already established that Jesus God long before "three centuries after His death". In fact, to deny that Jesus is God was considered heresy.

whose name (and whose disciples) does not appear in the writings of any non-secular historians of that period despite the fact that we have enough of their remaining works to fill entire libraries

That's odd. His name is mentioned in every book of the Bible.

the fact that the ending of the Gospel of Mark was tampered with, and a range of other reasons, causes the Bible to not strike me as particularly logical and reasonable evidence for God.

In all fairness, you started out by saying that the Bible claims that Jesus is His own father so how are you to be trusted when you say that the Bible is not logical or reasonable when you don't even know what the Bible teaches?

And, as you've mentioned, there has been new "logic" in subsequent centuries developed that refutes the Bible.

Such as...?

The consensus seems to be that the Bible doesn't stand up very well to scientific scrutiny.

The "consensus" among whom, exactly?

 

[drich0150]

I've been repeatedly told that Spirit (whatever that may mean), and not knowledge, is what leads one to an understanding of God, along with some lines of scripture that goes along the lines of that God shall turn the wisdom of the world into folly, or some such.

Besides that, I haven't personally seen a logical argument for God that is free of fallacies. Theism is overwhelmingly rejected as fact by the scientific community for lack of evidence. Organizations with theistic agendas have repeatedly tried to introduce various theistic ideologies into the classroom under the guise of evidence-based science, but have been soundly rejected by court decisions even when the judges were creationist Christians themselves. All of these indicate to me that, for reasons unknown, there has been no attempt or effort made by God to show himself via methods based on logic and reason. Am I mistaken?

Apparently so. It seems you believe proof and the existence of God can only be demonstrated through intellectual sparing. I challenge you to look beyond the realm you trying to hide from God, and where you seem to be limiting your search.

I can't say I agree this is the case. The story of a man who was his own father and born of a virgin, whose life account is filled with logical and narrative inconsistencies despite the writers supposedly being divinely inspired, whose divinity was in fact hotly contested before being settled by vote three centuries after his death, whose name (and whose disciples) does not appear in the writings of any non-secular historians of that period despite the fact that we have enough of their remaining works to fill entire libraries,

Actually their are many extra biblical writings that account the birth and life of Christ. It just seem that those who subscribe to the line of thought, you are championing dismiss these writings as "religious works" rather than an extra biblical/secular account of Christ.

the fact that the ending of the Gospel of Mark was tampered with, and a range of other reasons, causes the Bible to not strike me as particularly logical and reasonable evidence for God.

This is a weak argument at best. You are trying to forgo the whole of the gospel accounts because you have deemed a few verses at the end of one of them as suspect.. Shame on you for bring this lazy attempt of a dismissal into this conversation. If you want to continue this conversation with me, know you will be held to a higher standard.

You still have the whole of Mark (less the two or three verses you wish to dismiss) and 3 other/separate gospel accounts to discredit before you can dismiss the evidence provided by the bible.. That is if you wish to retain any semblance of creditability in your argument.

And, as you've mentioned, there has been new "logic" in subsequent centuries developed that refutes the Bible. The consensus seems to be that the Bible doesn't stand up very well to scientific scrutiny.

Perhaps it is Science that is constructed in such away as to ignore the evidences of God.

Judaism puts forward very a convincing case against Christ in my opinion. I'm not sure about Islam, but I'd imagine that the Muslims have their own apologetic arguments as well. Putting us atheists aside; even for those who believe in God, it seems that Christianity doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense.[/

It seems that in your great haste to religiously profile all who do not believe as you do, you have lumped all who believe in a deity as all sharing faith in the same God. Perhaps it would benefit you greatly if you took the time read up one what the three religions actually believe. Maybe then we can we can stick to one actual topic at a time.

 

[golgotha61]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

Reasoning involves logic, which are the tools we use to reason correctly and identify fallacious arguments. According to the law of non-contradiction, one of the laws of logic, two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. IE "the car is in the garage and it is not the case that the car is in the garage" is a contradictory statement and is necessarily false.



Since scientific examination only concerns itself with matter and energy, non-material laws of logic are out of the realm of science. Since God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13, if we are faithless, he abideth faithful; for he cannot deny himself),the law of non-contradiction originates with Him. Universal, unchanging, and immaterial laws of logic reflect the God who is universal, unchanging, and immaterial. When you use logic which comes from God, you are using His law and demonstrating He exists.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

The Bible never says anything about Jesus, who I presume you're talking about, being His own father.

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is fully God while also being the son of God. In other words, Jesus is his own father and son. As I've mentioned, I do not see that as logical.

Such as...?

All four canonical gospels differ on various aspects, such as Jesus' lineage, the date and place of Jesus' birth, what John the Baptist knows about Jesus (in Luke, JtB recognizes Jesus as the savior, but in John sends messengers to ask if Jesus was the one), the account of Judas' death, the events after Jesus' crucifixion and burial, et cetera. As far as logical consistencies go: how was Jesus of David's lineage when he was born a virgin birth, why did JtB baptize Jesus who was sinless, why did Jesus' family say that Jesus was out of his mind even though they knew he was the messiah, et cetera.

I would post links, but apparently I need 50 posts before I can do that...

I don't know how to verify if a piece of writing came from an all-powerful, all-knowing God. However, I do know how to tell that a piece of writing did not come from an all-powerful, all-knowing God. The method is remarkably simple: find inconsistencies or errors in it.

Actually, it was already established that Jesus God long before "three centuries after His death". In fact, to deny that Jesus is God was considered heresy.

Yes, by the proponents of Jesus' divinity. Look up the Arian controversy if you're interested in learning more. The controversy gained so much support that Arius and his supporters had to excommunicated, and three councils were needed to quell it. Even at the third council, the Heteroousians (supporters of Jesus being a different nature from God) defeated the Homoiousians (supporters of the opposing stance) in an initial debate, but Emperor Constantius II banished some Heteroousian deacons from the council, after which the council agreed to the creed of Jesus' divinity, with minor modifications.

Apparently so. It seems you believe proof and the existence of God can only be demonstrated through intellectual sparing. I challenge you to look beyond the realm you trying to hide from God, and where you seem to be limiting your search.

I thank you for the challenge, but I'll decline. As stated in the topic of this thread and my first post, what I'm interested in knowing is why doesn't God reveal himself via logic and reason.

Actually their are many extra biblical writings that account the birth and life of Christ. It just seem that those who subscribe to the line of thought, you are championing dismiss these writings as "religious works" rather than an extra biblical/secular account of Christ.

What are these secular sources?

This is a weak argument at best. You are trying to forgo the whole of the gospel accounts because you have deemed a few verses at the end of one of them as suspect.. Shame on you for bring this lazy attempt of a dismissal into this conversation. If you want to continue this conversation with me, know you will be held to a higher standard.

You still have the whole of Mark (less the two or three verses you wish to dismiss) and 3 other/separate gospel accounts to discredit before you can dismiss the evidence provided by the bible.. That is if you wish to retain any semblance of creditability in your argument.

I want to converse with people who are genuinely interested in answering the question with logical and reasonable responses, instead of those who are intent on simply than using fighting words and disparagement to dismiss questions to their faith. If you think you fall into the former category and are able to exhibit the corresponding behavior, yes, I am interested in continuing the conversation with you.

As I've said, it's one of the many reasons I do not consider the gospels as logical and reasonable evidence for God. Even if Mark hadn't been tampered with, it's still essentially a narrative account written with the intent to glorify Jesus with little to no verification from secular sources. A story is not evidence. With that said, when original copies of the Gospel of Mark ends at an empty tomb and an extended ending describing Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were added to it two centuries later by other authors, my personal opinion of it changes from it being simply a baseless story to a deliberately concocted work of fiction in order to push a specific agenda. A gospel with such a dubious background hardly seems like the work of an all-powerful supreme being.

Perhaps it is Science that is constructed in such away as to ignore the evidences of God.

Yes, I would agree on that. Science rejects what cannot be logically proven, and the evidence of God is illogical.

It seems that in your great haste to religiously profile all who do not believe as you do, you have lumped all who believe in a deity as all sharing faith in the same God. Perhaps it would benefit you greatly if you took the time read up one what the three religions actually believe. Maybe then we can we can stick to one actual topic at a time.

Judaism accepts the Old Testament (Torah), but rejects Jesus as the messiah. Islam, too, accepts the Old Testament, but also rejects that Jesus was divine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all accept that the same central figures such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, etc were real and existed. They're simply three different interpretations of the same God and the figures in question.

In other words, not even everyone who believes in God finds Christianity logical.

 

[oi_antz]

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is fully God while also being the son of God. In other words, Jesus is his own father and son. As I've mentioned, I do not see that as logical.


All four canonical gospels differ on various aspects, such as Jesus' lineage, the date and place of Jesus' birth, what John the Baptist knows about Jesus (in Luke, JtB recognizes Jesus as the savior, but in John sends messengers to ask if Jesus was the one), the account of Judas' death, the events after Jesus' crucifixion and burial, et cetera. As far as logical consistencies go: how was Jesus of David's lineage when he was born a virgin birth, why did JtB baptize Jesus who was sinless, why did Jesus' family say that Jesus was out of his mind even though they knew he was the messiah, et cetera.

I would post links, but apparently I need 50 posts before I can do that...

I don't know how to verify if a piece of writing came from an all-powerful, all-knowing God. However, I do know how to tell that a piece of writing did not come from an all-powerful, all-knowing God. The method is remarkably simple: find inconsistencies or errors in it.


Yes, by the proponents of Jesus' divinity. Look up the Arian controversy if you're interested in learning more. The controversy gained so much support that Arius and his supporters had to excommunicated, and three councils were needed to quell it. Even at the third council, the Heteroousians (supporters of Jesus being a different nature from God) defeated the Homoiousians (supporters of the opposing stance) in an initial debate, but Emperor Constantius II banished some Heteroousian deacons from the council, after which the council agreed to the creed of Jesus' divinity, with minor modifications.


I thank you for the challenge, but I'll decline. As stated in the topic of this thread and my first post, what I'm interested in knowing is why doesn't God reveal himself via logic and reason.


What are these secular sources?


I want to converse with people who are genuinely interested in answering the question with logical and reasonable responses, instead of those who are intent on simply than using fighting words and disparagement to dismiss questions to their faith. If you think you fall into the former category and are able to exhibit the corresponding behavior, yes, I am interested in continuing the conversation with you.

As I've said, it's one of the many reasons I do not consider the gospels as logical and reasonable evidence for God. Even if Mark hadn't been tampered with, it's still essentially a narrative account written with the intent to glorify Jesus with little to no verification from secular sources. A story is not evidence. With that said, when original copies of the Gospel of Mark ends at an empty tomb and an extended ending describing Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were added to it two centuries later by other authors, my personal opinion of it changes from it being simply a baseless story to a deliberately concocted work of fiction in order to push a specific agenda. A gospel with such a dubious background hardly seems like the work of an all-powerful supreme being.


Yes, I would agree on that. Science rejects what cannot be logically proven, and the evidence of God is illogical.


Judaism accepts the Old Testament (Torah), but rejects Jesus as the messiah. Islam, too, accepts the Old Testament, but also rejects that Jesus was divine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all accept that the same central figures such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, etc were real and existed. They're simply three different interpretations of the same God and the figures in question.

In other words, not even everyone who believes in God finds Christianity logical.

Just a quick note to you captain, you are basing a lot of your belief upon a false assumption that you know the gospel well enough to be an authority on it. You don't know squat. If you want to learn from people around here, you will have to give them sufficient respect such that you will be able to hear what they are saying and then think about what they say instead of just flat-out arguing about everything. Hope this helps, I will check back later to see how you are going

 

[rturner76]

I'll try to offer a little insight but I think you don't really want to entertain the possibility. The first thing you would have to do is suspend the notion of God being a all powerful human or even a humanoid type anything. You would need to first open your mind to a God that may not be as the Christian God that is described by most people. Not saying what form it takes but could be invisible energy or a creative force. The main scientific reason I feel God must exist is the law of cause and effect. Would you say the universe being created or physics being set into motion is an effect? Big Bang theory? That would be an effect. Every effect needs a cause.matter coming into existance at some point would have to happen right? What does that mean? To me, that means there has to be a being or a cause that exists that is not bound by time. That would make this cause or being or force immortal. I don't know exactly how that plays into our existance and souls and thought and all that but I'm trying to look at this from an Athiest scientific point of view. Why wouldn't it be obvious? Because our limited intelligence cannot comprehend this kind of energy.being, cause, or whatever you call it/ Like a baby can't comprehent and aircraft. It's just too much for our little water based little eletric impulses to deal with. We're 10,000 years from figuring out fire. Anyway, I hope that gives you something to chew on for 30 seconds at least

 

[Starlightsobright]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

It is a matter of Faith which is a gift from God.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

Logic and reason themselves both reveal G-d!

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense.

Please apply your beloved logic and reason here ...

Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it.

Correct! It is a matter of the heart. Personally, I find that to know G-d is to Love Him. He is perfect. What else can you say that about?

God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science,

Your understanding is 180 degrees off. Correct that first, then you may find yourself seeing G-d ...

 

[Peacedove]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

He did and He called HImself Jesus but they didn't believe Him then anymore than many people do now. Do you really think people would be any more likely to accept Him today than they were the first time He came? The proof is there for those who want to accept it.

 

[razeontherock]

In other words, Jesus is his own father and son.

Strawman is a logical fallacy. The rest of your post goes on to employ that over and over. You really should learn something about this logic you love ...

All four canonical gospels differ on ... Jesus' lineage, the date and place of Jesus' birth

No they don't. You should get your fact straight!

As far as logical consistencies go: how was Jesus of David's lineage when he was born a virgin birth, why did JtB baptize Jesus who was sinless, why did Jesus' family say that Jesus was out of his mind even though they knew he was the messiah, et cetera.

None of these demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate. The only thing your inclusion of them here show is you have failed to employ the reasoning powers G-d gave you. You have a lot of seeking on each of these specifics (and no doubt many more) to do before you are in any position to even form an opinion, let alone voice one ...

 

[Astridhere]

I'll try to offer a little insight but I think you don't really want to entertain the possibility. The first thing you would have to do is suspend the notion of God being a all powerful human or even a humanoid type anything. You would need to first open your mind to a God that may not be as the Christian God that is described by most people. Not saying what form it takes but could be invisible energy or a creative force. The main scientific reason I feel God must exist is the law of cause and effect. Would you say the universe being created or physics being set into motion is an effect? Big Bang theory? That would be an effect. Every effect needs a cause.matter coming into existance at some point would have to happen right? What does that mean? To me, that means there has to be a being or a cause that exists that is not bound by time. That would make this cause or being or force immortal. I don't know exactly how that plays into our existance and souls and thought and all that but I'm trying to look at this from an Athiest scientific point of view. Why wouldn't it be obvious? Because our limited intelligence cannot comprehend this kind of energy.being, cause, or whatever you call it/ Like a baby can't comprehent and aircraft. It's just too much for our little water based little eletric impulses to deal with. We're 10,000 years from figuring out fire. Anyway, I hope that gives you something to chew on for 30 seconds at least

I agree with you. There is evidence of God but it does not appear to be discerned by those that do not wish to see.

I think the earth, our incredibly lucky address, the formation of the earth with an iron core, seasons, hydrolic cycle, tilt, magnetic poles etc etc etc demonstrates there is more than luck at hand in the formation of the earth alone.

Other basis for belief is are the incredible scientific accuracies within the bible eg circle of the earth, rules of hygiene given to Isrealites, stars numbering grains of sand on the beaches, the formation of the moon after the earth, the universe had a beginning etc

Scientific Research Supports Biblical Scriptures

There is evidence of God, one just needs to not deny it by the reasonings of mankind as being luck!

 

[Eric Hilbert]

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is fully God while also being the son of God. In other words, Jesus is his own father and son. As I've mentioned, I do not see that as logical.

No. Christianity does not teach that Jesus is His own Father. It teaches that Jesus and God the Father are two seperate and distinct persons. As I pointed out to you earlier, not only does Christianity not teach this but, historically, those found in Christianity to believe this were either removed from the Church or put to death.

All four canonical gospels differ on various aspects, such as Jesus' lineage, the date and place of Jesus' birth, what John the Baptist knows about Jesus (in Luke, JtB recognizes Jesus as the savior, but in John sends messengers to ask if Jesus was the one), the account of Judas' death, the events after Jesus' crucifixion and burial, et cetera.

So then, because three different authors describe events three different ways, that's illogical?

As far as logical consistencies go: how was Jesus of David's lineage when he was born a virgin birth

Because his mother was descended from David. What does being born from a virgin birth have to do with it?

why did JtB baptize Jesus who was sinless

John asked the same question. It had nothing to do with sin. It had to do with fulfilling the law and it had to do with an act the OT calls a "mikvah", which is a cleansing ritual by which the priest of God is consecrated and introduced to the community as one who speaks for and acts on behalf of God.

why did Jesus' family say that Jesus was out of his mind even though they knew he was the messiah, et cetera.

If your brother said he was the Messiah, wouldn't that seem a little fishy to you? But I notice that you left out the part where they came to understand that He was telling the truth and really was the Messiah.

I would post links, but apparently I need 50 posts before I can do that...

Why do you need to post links? I would think that a Bible scholar such as yourself would know them off the top of your head.

I don't know how to verify if a piece of writing came from an all-powerful, all-knowing God. However, I do know how to tell that a piece of writing did not come from an all-powerful, all-knowing God. The method is remarkably simple: find inconsistencies or errors in it.

So should we apply the same standard to your posts?

Yes, by the proponents of Jesus' divinity.

Obviously, but even more authoritative than that, by the Church, itself.

I thank you for the challenge, but I'll decline.

Just as I thought.

 

[Faulty]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

You ever notice the creation all around you and in that body of yours that you wake up in every day? From the complexity, vastness, and order of the universe, to the complex, yet "simple" mechinism of growing and mantaining a tree, to the intricate functionality of the human body which is equipped with a functional supercomputer that is able to run mainly on cheeseburgers and coffee, to the intricate designs and complex interactions of the elements at an atomic level, one can see a design.

However, one has to marvel at one who can look at all this and proclaim "everything came from nothing", a scientific impossibility held by those who claim science as their source. Currently, there are people using the Hadron Colllider to attempt to simulate the "big bang", but I cry foul. They are using existing elements (protons), and existing structure (the collider), and large amounts of existing energy to conduct their experiments.

I say, let them start with nothing and recreate their "big bang". And why don't they? Because it's absurd. Otherwise, even if somehow successful, all they've proven is that their "big bang" required a source of elements, a highly designed system, and massive amounts of energy to begin with, which is hardly nothing to everything.

 

[drich0150]

I thank you for the challenge, but I'll decline. As stated in the topic of this thread and my first post, what I'm interested in knowing is why doesn't God reveal himself via logic and reason.

As I pointed out He has. But those who worship logic and reason over God, use it to hide themselves from God rather than use it to find Him. For example, would it not be logical and reasonable to look for God in the manner in which He has commanded us to seek Him rather than demand the all mighty God jump through the hoops those who worship logic and reason demand He go through? If He were to bend to your will, rather you bending to his would He still be God?

What are these secular sources?

Secular historians refer to them as "The Lost Books of the Bible" or the rejected texts. This proves that anything dealing with the life of the Christ is attributed to Christianity even if it is not a part of canonical text.

I want to converse with people who are genuinely interested in answering the question with logical and reasonable responses, instead of those who are intent on simply than using fighting words and disparagement to dismiss questions to their faith. If you think you fall into the former category and are able to exhibit the corresponding behavior, yes, I am interested in continuing the conversation with you.

Apparently either your pride has demanded that you respond, or you do see a legitimacy in the "fighting words" you are so eager to dismiss. My words were offered to you as a challenge to elevate your responses to the same level of "evidence, logic and reason" your are demanding of God. If you wish to dismiss the bible on something other than your "Faith" in the bible being in error then by all means please provide us with the same type of "Proof" you require from us or God.

I guess seeing the same challenge offered to us for the first time, redirected back at you may indeed read as "Fighting words."

As I've said, it's one of the many reasons I do not consider the gospels as logical and reasonable evidence for God. Even if Mark hadn't been tampered with, it's still essentially a narrative account written with the intent to glorify Jesus with little to no verification from secular sources.

Again you have dismissed the secular sources as being religious. You all foolishly demand for extra biblical proof for the life and works of Christ, but when you all see it it is always dismissed as a "religious work." If this is the case then please show me where what is known as the book of Thomas was included in the cannon or the writings of Marry Madeline. If they are indeed not in the bible then these accounts of the life death, burial and resurrection are indeed to be considered extra biblical or (secular) accounts of Christ.

A story is not evidence. With that said, when original copies of the Gospel of Mark ends at an empty tomb and an extended ending describing Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were added to it two centuries later by other authors, my personal opinion of it changes from it being simply a baseless story to a deliberately concocted work of fiction in order to push a specific agenda. A gospel with such a dubious background hardly seems like the work of an all-powerful supreme being.

Again, what of the other three accounts? What of the secular accounts?

Yes, I would agree on that. Science rejects what cannot be logically proven, and the evidence of God is illogical.

So black holes, big bangs, string theory and all of the rest of science's Faith Based "Theories" are based in Real world proof, and not in popular interpretation of what they deem as factual?

Judaism accepts the Old Testament (Torah), but rejects Jesus as the messiah. Islam, too, accepts the Old Testament, but also rejects that Jesus was divine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all accept that the same central figures such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, etc were real and existed. They're simply three different interpretations of the same God and the figures in question.

In other words, not even everyone who believes in God finds Christianity logical.

So again are we talking about God or Christianity? Or are you simply lashing out any where you find the opportunity?

 

[Paul.]

causes the Bible to not strike me as particularly logical and reasonable evidence for God.

If the Bible is not logical and reasonable evidence for God, this does not disprove the existence of God.

not even everyone who believes in God finds Christianity logical.

That is quite true. However, the lack of knowledge on the part of some Christians does not disprove the existence of God either.

why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

I would have to argue that the existence of God is both reasonable and logical and that He has revealed Himself to mankind. In fact as you are probably aware the subject of Christian Apologetics deals with this topic.

I believe that the first step in looking at the logical and reasonable evidence for the existence of God is the answer to the question, Do you believe that the universe had a beginning? I believe it did and science also seems to believe that it did too. What do you believe and what is your logical and reasonable evidence for that belief?

 

[bling]

Going back to the OP. Faith helps man to fulfill his objective, while "knowledge" puffs up the individual and actual hinders him from fulfilling his objective (due to the need for humility).

All mature adults have “faith” in something or someone. It is the channeling of this “trust” (faith) toward God that is the total of what man brings to the relationship with God and God is providing all the rest.

The fact is the lowliest mature adult on earth can put his trust (faith) in his Creator and in fact might find it easier to do than the learned wise rich person.

Trusting (faith) God is contrasted with trusting self, but man is made with a needed “ego” (desire for self preservation) which is partly self center and thus somewhat selfish. We are taught (especially in the USA) to be self reliant and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. The problem is we need to be humble in order to accept “Charity” and accepting “charity” humbly and correctly is the only way for us to receive the charity. Trusting in God is humbling (contrasted with trusting self) and that humility is enough to get us to the point of swallowing our pride and accepting God’s help (forgiveness/Love/Mercy/Grace/Love).

Faith along with everything else in this world is helping willing humans accept God’s Charity.

Man’s earthly objective is not to have “faith” since we all have faith in something, but it is to obtain Godly type Love (unconditional, undeserving, sacrificial). God cannot give us this “Love” (agape) instinctively (that would be a robotic type of Love) and God cannot force this Love on us (that would not be Loving on His part or would it be Godly type Love we got). The best God can do for us is to allow us to accept the Love as an unconditional and undeserving gift, but that means accepting charity and humans do not like to take charity especially when the giver made a huge sacrifice. To correctly accept charity, humans have to have a big need for the charity and humble themselves to accept it. Thus the need for sin, the burden sin creates the need for forgiveness which is the easiest way for us to accept charity (Love, grace, mercy).

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

No. Christianity does not teach that Jesus is His own Father. It teaches that Jesus and God the Father are two seperate and distinct persons. As I pointed out to you earlier, not only does Christianity not teach this but, historically, those found in Christianity to believe this were either removed from the Church or put to death.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinctly coexisting in unity as of one being. If Jesus was another God alongside God, Christians would be worshiping two Gods, which is in direct contradiction to God's own commands: "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) and "Do not worship any other god" (Exodus 34:14). No, Christianity doesn't use the specific words that Jesus is his own father, but if the Father and Son are one being, it implicitly implies that Jesus is his own father and God is his own son.

As I've explained previously, the Heteroousians were part of the church! Not only that, their ranks consisted of many church deacons. Why else do you think they were invited to debate in councils whose purposes were to settle a matter of Christian doctrine? Please look it up if you don't understand it.

So then, because three different authors describe events three different ways, that's illogical?

Different ways, no. If all four authors were describing the same event, only with different language and prose, that's perfectly fine and understandable. But when four supposedly divinely-inspired authors all present different and conflicting accounts of the same event, something doesn't add up.

Because his mother was descended from David. What does being born from a virgin birth have to do with it?

Because nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that Mary was descended from David. What was painstakingly pointed out, however, was that Joseph was the descendant of David. In true Biblical fashion, Joseph's genealogy is presented by two authors, and again both of them offer two radically differing lists. Assuming we accept the argument that one author was listing Joseph's genealogy while another was listing Mary's, Matthew lists 26 generations between David and Joseph/Mary, while Luke gives 41. If both are correct, it is preposterous that Joseph and Mary could've ever met and married. Either Matthew or Luke got it wrong, or both of them did. Again, this is highly damaging to the claim the Bible is divinely-inspired and absolutely true.

John asked the same question. It had nothing to do with sin. It had to do with fulfilling the law and it had to do with an act the OT calls a "mikvah", which is a cleansing ritual by which the priest of God is consecrated and introduced to the community as one who speaks for and acts on behalf of God.

Well, I didn't know that Jesus was a priest of God who needed to be cleansed or consecrated at all. Given that the Christian doctrine claims that Jesus is God, I didn't know Jesus had to speak on God's behalf either. I think it's safe to assume that most (if not all) of your fellow Christians didn't, too.

If your brother said he was the Messiah, wouldn't that seem a little fishy to you?

Not if he had a visit from an angel to back it up!