We know there's a God because...

Straggler:So much for my strengthened, grand, and level-headed re-entry...While going for the juggular, the truth Himself tripped me flat! I noticed the problem after my last reply, but was unable to respond due to other matters...Very good Straggler.I wish I could tell you that this was all a grand strategy on my part, but that would be false.Ironically, it makes way for an answer to Percy's question.Now that we can all acknowledge that Percy's question is not hypothetical, we are presented with a very unlikely situation.How, and why exactly... would men invent God's that serve to restrict them? Especially a God like the biblical one, who (long before it was written, led people on a what to most of them, was a mysterious, long term historical journey with little in the way of immediate material satisfaction...That is the sum of the question. I do not intend to argue it fully myself. You made me remember that C.S. Lewis had mentioned this very question in one of his books. Perhaps I can find it later. I know you are all eager to read it.He makes the case (somewhat in the way I am framing it) that the whole proposal is entirely unlikely compared to what we should expect; except, for the possibility that man always knew about God, because man had begun life in contact with God.All the other stories of gods would have evolved from the original story, though slightly modified each time to the benefit of differring cultural proclivities. I am by no means giving justice to the argument in it's details, but had not even considered it worthy of remembering until you jogged my memory.I guess it wasn't a particualrly troublesome doubt or mystery for me personally compared to others.My apologies for leaving it there. If you want it, you can read some Lewis. But I might be able to paste a copy of Lewis' argument later.I don't have time at the moment to battle two fronts, and appearently my head is not yet level enough to handle it either. I had buried all of those personal feelings having been gone six months. They ressurrected quickly.Straggler:Well despte my arguments earlier which were maladjusted, it would be just the opposite actually. They would have known better than anyone that there was a God, the further back toward the beginning we went.Their rebellion would have been overtly evil and intentional compared to many of our modern civilizations where God in some quarters is not well known or understood other than as a religion. It isn't a reality to us today as a culture as it was then. As such, there destruction and judgement by God would have been expected by them. Their fear was not unfounded. It was real.We must understand that even if man knows God, he often still rejects Him in a deliberate attempt to be God and claim his life as his own creation.A little personal story...I actually confessed to my pastor about a year ago, that my struggles and misery were so intense... that if it were in my power, I would forget God. It is simply not convenient in this climate to believe. Maybe 50 years ago, maybe at some other time. But this time, is a time of severe testing for people like myself.I actually wanted to forget Him. But I am not that strong.I cannot deny what I actually believe to be true. I may not want to know certian things at times, like anyone else. But once I know, there's no going back for me. I follow Him wherever He leads. And often kicking and screaming. I don't understand where i am going. I just believe He does.If it was blind faith, I could repent of it. But it is seeing faith. There is nothing more radical that meeting God. It is either the greatest revelation, or the greatest insanity.Anyway... my own experience with all this helps me to understand why they would do it. Why people would suffer through such a thing and appearently waste their life. Only because they actually made contact with God as the Bible said. It's the only reason I believe it. Because I know there is going to be a ressurection, having met the risen Lord.It's like Paul said, 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.We understand the implications quite clearly and sanely.Anyway, you do what you want with this. I am going to focus on our great debate.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Doc:Methodological naturalism can detect the supernatural (the quantum), it just cannot say anything intelligible about it. What is science part 2 - rob_lock LiveJournal John Polkinghorne, proffessor of quantum at Cambridge will set you straight if you read his book 'One World'.For instance, M/N makes us frame a question in this way, 'what is energy?'Methodological naturalism (which is not science btw -see link) can only tell us what energy does. It cannot speak to what, or who energy is.The part that get's me... is that energy is defined (by scientists) as 'the capacity to do work'.Do you know what Jesus said? He said, "my father is always working to this very day and I too am working".Jesus has a lot of capacity... according to His own ecclesiastical proclamation. I mean really now... who does He think He is? God?In light of Doc's comments, I plead for the magistrate to see that the definition of science rears it's head quite naturally in this setting.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Straggler:The only thing I am contending is that they were (in some ways) more enlightened than those who deny that there is a God altogether. And at the same time they were more foolish (in other ways). Afterall, if we are going to believe in a God at all, it better be the true God.Many chose to worship nature gods rather than 'the God' of nature. What interests me, is how close to the truth they were. The connections between nature religions and Christianity is a revealing subject in itself. And it can be examined from more than one angle.C.S. Lewis covers it brilliantly in his book 'Miracles'. Nature god's are the natural bent of man apart from higher reasoning.What I am not claiming, is that I have all the answers.I wish not to pursue this course any further. I gladly give all of you the rest of this thread...

No problem. I didn't phrase it very well and I came in stirring tension between you and I. But you are right, I was only trying to admit that I was the last one to concede the point that Straggler made so well.Blinded by ambition I was...

Straggler:That's right. We're not trying to do that (well... I AM!). One step at a time.Orgel and Crick have put forward the notion of other alien life because of the same evidence long ago...

quote:

---

Crick was not content to sit back on his laurels after winning one of the top prizes in science, however. He continued to study the mysteries of life, such as the nature of consciousness, or the possibility that RNA preceded the development of DNA.

​

In 1973, he and the chemist Leslie Orgel published a paper in the journal Icarus suggesting that life may have arrived on Earth through a process called 'Directed Panspermia.'

​

The Panspermia hypothesis suggests that the seeds of life are common in the universe and can be spread between worlds. This idea originated with the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, and was later promoted by the Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius and the British astronomer Fred Hoyle.

​

Versions of this hypothesis have survived to the present day, with the discovery of proposed 'fossil structures' in the martian meteorite ALH84001.

---

( Francis Crick Remembered )What does that tell you?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.