Why I believe in God

[Archaeopteryx]

Very keen observation.





Why assume you ask?

Who said I was assuming?

I am simply giving some of the reasons why the unbelieving continued in unbelief even after having witnessed signs and wonders done by Jesus. It is in the scripture. It is plain to see. Does not Jesus ask:

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

Muhammad's ascension is also recorded in Scripture, and yet you are still not a Muslim? Is it because of your pride and desire for glory among men? The Quran says that you are without excuse, Jeremy.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Muhammad's ascension is also recorded in Scripture, and yet you are still not a Muslim? Is it because of your pride and desire for glory among men? The Quran says that you are without excuse, Jeremy.

I am not a Muslim because I am a Christian. I am a Christian because God's prevenient grace drew me to Himself and I repented and believed and trusted in Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins and now have a relationship with God wherein my knowledge of God grows day by day.

Your point is not lost on me. It is that everything I say can be said by someone else from another religion. But you are wrong. For a Muslim cannot say that they have placed their hope and trust in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. In fact no one but a Christian can say that. No one but a Christian can say that God became flesh and dwelt among men and lived a sinless life and died so that we might have life eternal.

Malcolm Muggeridge speaks on this very thing when he says:

"Plenty of great teachers, mystics, martyrs and saints have made their appearance at different times in the world, and lived lives and spoken words full of grace and truth, for which we have every reason to be grateful. Of none of them, however, has the claim been made, and accepted, that they were Incarnate God. In the case of Jesus alone the belief has persisted that when he came into the world God deigned to take on the likeness of a man in order that thenceforth men might be encouraged to aspire after the likeness of God; reaching out from their mortality to His immortality, from their imperfection to His perfection."

 

[Davian]

You are trying to paint over personal experience with broad brush strokes with black paint in an attempt to erase it completely from the list of resources we have for ascertaining the veracity of a truth claim.

Not at all. I am saying that is should not be on the top of that list.

What you are trying to do in essence is say that unless a claim can be demonstrated to be true to a lot of people (how large this number must be and why it must be this specific number you have yet to even begin to explain, but I digress) then we cannot trust the claim.

What I am saying is that personal experience is demonstrably unreliable, and second-hand and anonymous reports of personal experience even more so.

Do you put serious consideration into the possibility that millions of people may have been abducted and returned by extraterrestrial aliens?

"In 1991, Hopkins, Jacobs and sociologist Dr. Ron Westrum commissioned a Roper Poll in order to determine how many Americans might have experienced the abduction phenomenon. Of nearly 6,000 Americans, 119 answered in a way that Hopkins et al. interpreted as supporting their ET interpretation of the abduction phenomenon. Based on this figure, Hopkins estimated that nearly four million Americans might have been abducted by extraterrestrials." wiki

The glaring hole in your logic is due to your failure to account for the fact that the New Testament gives us the account of God raising Jesus from the dead, not in some dark corner away from the rest of humanity, but rather, from the very place He was buried. This was in Jerusalem, on the Sunday following His crucifixion, in a city still bustling with literally hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world. Does not the scripture say that Jesus later appeared to hundreds who beheld Him before ascending into heaven?

Do you have the names and addresses for any of these individuals? No?

Come on Davian, I think you have read enough of the New Testament to know that, as Paul stated to King Agrippa, this thing was not done in a corner. Paul appealed to King Agrippa's knowledge of the events in question when he says: "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."

I have seen several people resort to being total historical skeptics just so they can label the accounts of the New Testament authors as "unreliable". If historical skepticism is how you avoid coming to terms with what they wrote, then I would say that is just one more piece of evidence for the veracity of their testimony.

That I reject it is evidence for its veracity? In what universe is that?

No, the reason I do not accept the premise that the bible should be considered historically accurate is because of its lack of correlation with observations of reality.

I never said you should believe Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so.

But that is what you did.

I would appeal to evidence such as the empty tomb, accounts of Jesus' post mortem appearances to hundreds, and the disciple's sudden conviction that Jesus was alive as a few lines of evidence for starters.

Stories of evidence is not evidence. This is apologetics, and you will have this thread locked in short order.

These three lines of evidence are agreed upon by virtually all New Testament scholars.

Why are they all not convinced?

 

[Davian]

I said it was a matter of fact, i.e. a matter subject to investigation and inquiry.

Not a fact, then.

God is not through with you yet!

And you be sure to keep off of Santa's "naughty" list.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

God works in mysterious ways.
When you have doubts or fear something, sometimes you read something that makes you believe it will be alright.

 

[Davian]

God works in mysterious ways.
When you have doubts or fear something, sometimes you read something that makes you believe it will be alright.

Religion as a comfort blanket - I can see that. If it works for you, and you are sure not to poke holes or pull at loose threads.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not a Muslim because I am a Christian. I am a Christian because God's prevenient grace drew me to Himself and I repented and believed and trusted in Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins and now have a relationship with God wherein my knowledge of God grows day by day.

Your point is not lost on me. It is that everything I say can be said by someone else from another religion. But you are wrong. For a Muslim cannot say that they have placed their hope and trust in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. In fact no one but a Christian can say that. No one but a Christian can say that God became flesh and dwelt among men and lived a sinless life and died so that we might have life eternal.

You say that my point is not lost on you. What follows after that indicates otherwise.

Malcolm Muggeridge speaks on this very thing when he says:

"Plenty of great teachers, mystics, martyrs and saints have made their appearance at different times in the world, and lived lives and spoken words full of grace and truth, for which we have every reason to be grateful. Of none of them, however, has the claim been made, and accepted, that they were Incarnate God. In the case of Jesus alone the belief has persisted that when he came into the world God deigned to take on the likeness of a man in order that thenceforth men might be encouraged to aspire after the likeness of God; reaching out from their mortality to His immortality, from their imperfection to His perfection."

That is simply inaccurate. Stories of divine incarnation are not exclusive to Christianity, as the study of comparative religion shows.

 

[Davian]

Then you'd be the one desensitized to stings.

Seeing as your personal thread has suffered the wrath of mod, I will respond to this post that I referred to earlier.

You are under no obligation to respond to any posts; however, in the context of a philosophy forum, I would like to think that one should be prepared to respond to requests for justification for comments one makes within the forum, if one expects the same from others. The alternative would be... hypocritical. Again, YMMV.

I infer from this post that you are saying that I am receiving "stings" from "truths" that I am stumbling over, and that I am somehow desensitized to them.

From your faith icon I infer that you you think these "truths" involve things about your religion.

Enlighten me.

Also, toss out the "frenemies" comment. A friend, here, is one that provides intellectually honest discussion and debate. I don't make time for my enemies.

 

[Received]

Seeing as your personal thread has suffered the wrath of mod, I will respond to this post that I referred to earlier.

You are under no obligation to respond to any posts; however, in the context of a philosophy forum, I would like to think that one should be prepared to respond to requests for justification for comments one makes within the forum, if one expects the same from others. The alternative would be... hypocritical. Again, YMMV.

Do you think this applies with every single post? That a person should respond to every single post solicited of him, or else he's hypocritical?

I infer from this post that you are saying that I am receiving "stings" from "truths" that I am stumbling over, and that I am somehow desensitized to them.

Can you give me the post that says this much? I don't remember where it's from.

 

[Davian]

Do you think this applies with every single post? That a person should respond to every single post solicited of him, or else he's hypocritical?

Good gravy. No.

Again. You are under no obligation to respond to any posts; however, in the context of a philosophy forum, I would like to think that one should be prepared to respond to requests for justification for comments one makes within the forum, if one expects the same from others.

Can you give me the post that says this much? I don't remember where it's from.

You said that, here.

 

[talquin]

Here's the evidence I find most convincing that God exists.

Our universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is accepted by nearly all scientists.

If it is agreed that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, then where was all the matter that makes up the universe prior to the Big Bang?

If the universe had a beginning, either there is an eternal multiverse or succession of universes, or God created it.

That's a false dichotomy. Either there is an eternal multiverse or there is not an eternal multiverse would be a true dichotomy. Either there is a succession of universes or there is not a succession of universes is a true dichotomy. Saying if it wasn't 'A' means it was God is only a true dichotomy if "God" = anything that isn't 'A'.

To say it just happened without a cause I see as highly irrational, but for sake of argument I'll pretend it is possible.

The multiverse or succession of universes means there have been an actual infinite number of universes. That raises some logical difficulties. It also means everything happening now has already happened an infinite number of times.

Why would that be true?

Also, the second law of thermodynamics has to be 100% false on that ultimate level. I don't say it's impossible, but it's a pretty huge concept.

We have four options then. If none of them have any observational evidence and are equally good at explaining the universe, it is equally rational to favor any of them.

Life had a beginning. Either God made it, or an extremely unlikely coincidence did. (panspermia, etc, just pushes the problem back a step.)

Once again, that's a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be either God made it or no god made it - assuming it was made. That is unless "God" = anything other than an extremely unlikely coincidence.

Life arising from nonlife is totally unobserved, so not more probable than God.

Why assume it was a god if you don't know?

Humans are wired to want to know what is ultimately true, to desire meaning, beauty, and other things that are not important to survival and reproduction. It's to be expected that God would design these qualities, but if they evolved naturally that is another unlikely coincidence.

Think about where each human being is at this precise moment. What do you think the chances were of every human being being in those precise locations at this moment was? It's an almost inconceivably high improbability - but it's true. So, yes, unlikely coincidences do occur all the time.

One hypothesis, God, explains several diverse phenomena that require multiple hypotheses to explain without God, and which don't do as well. Thus God is the most probable explanation for the universe, life, and the human psychology, and it is more rational to be a theist than an atheist.

It sounds like you're using "God" in lieu for everything you don't know. Isn't it easier to just admit you don't know? Or do you wish to commit the fallacious argument of argument from ignorance - "I don't know what did it, so therefore God did it".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You cant test the "God hypothesis" directly, but maybe reason by analogy - just like you argue that Sartre had genuis because of his "Being and Nothingness" etc, even though you could not test the idea he had an inner life directly.

Maybe it goes like this tho'..

If genuis then beautiful and complex world.

Beautiful and complex world.

Therefore genuis.

i.e. affirming the consequent

 

[Received]

Good gravy. No.

Again. You are under no obligation to respond to any posts; however, in the context of a philosophy forum, I would like to think that one should be prepared to respond to requests for justification for comments one makes within the forum, if one expects the same from others.

Okay, then hence my appeal to drawing the line. At what point -- using what criteria to determine this point -- is a person justified in not responding to every post?

You said that, here.

Thanks.

My comment about desensitization means you've experienced stings enough in your search for truth that they don't hurt any more, presumably because of your commitment to truth. Of course, on a second reading it appears that you say you don't experience stings -- i.e., don't have an emotional attachment to some degree to each of your beliefs, which people in general (myself included) have, and I would say is biologically sound as such.

 

[Davian]

Okay, then hence my appeal to drawing the line. At what point -- using what criteria to determine this point -- is a person justified in not responding to every post?

That would be a different topic. I do not see why one must respond to every post, and that is not what I am saying.

Thanks.

My comment about desensitization means you've experienced stings enough in your search for truth that they don't hurt any more, presumably because of your commitment to truth.

I avoid the word 'truth', as I often seen the word to be synonymous with "my religious opinion".

If anything, I am committed to not believing things that are wrong.

Of course, on a second reading it appears that you say you don't experience stings -- i.e., don't have an emotional attachment to some degree to each of your beliefs, which people in general (myself included) have, and I would say is biologically sound as such.

I do definitely experience 'stings' - but I do not avoid them, even with those understandable emotional attachments that we all have. I consider them the price of not leaving stones unturned (why, hello, nihilism!).

What I read into your posts was that you think that I am de-sensitized to stings that you think should be there regarding your "truths", since you feel them yourself. I may have gotten that wrong.

From my perspective, if those 'stings' are only in the religionists imagination, I would not expect to feel them.

As I said in #65, if my perception of reality can be demonstrated to be wrong, I welcome it. I have nothing to lose. In your recently locked thread, it would seem that your happiness was at stake.

 

[Kylie]

We have four options then. If none of them have any observational evidence and are equally good at explaining the universe, it is equally rational to favor any of them.

I would say that the one that requires the least number of assumptions is the most rational.

Life had a beginning. Either God made it, or an extremely unlikely coincidence did. (panspermia, etc, just pushes the problem back a step.)
Life arising from nonlife is totally unobserved, so not more probable than God.

Why are these the only two options? In any case, there is a third option - some other cause which is as yet unknown.

Humans are wired to want to know what is ultimately true, to desire meaning, beauty, and other things that are not important to survival and reproduction. It's to be expected that God would design these qualities, but if they evolved naturally that is another unlikely coincidence.

There are many species that have a strong sense of curiosity.

One hypothesis, God, explains several diverse phenomena that require multiple hypotheses to explain without God, and which don't do as well. Thus God is the most probable explanation for the universe, life, and the human psychology, and it is more rational to be a theist than an atheist.

However, it doesn't explain where God came from. The questions you have raised about the universe are questions I have about your god concept.

In any case, why has this resulted in you being a Christian? How do you know that this creator god of yours isn't a god who created the universe billions of years ago and has done nothing with it since then?