|
Author
|
Topic: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: 04-12-2005
|
Re: Summary?
purpledawn writes: But God doesn't today. Today he does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated for whatever reason. Yes he still does today. If you mean, "Can we penetrate into the very heavens, walk up to God, put him on a scale and measure his weight...or somethng similar to this?" then I agree that certain aspects of God cannot be scientifically substantiated at this point in time. But I've always maintained that these limitations reflect humanity's limitations and not God's. It most likely has nothing to do with what God will "allow" and has more to do with how "blind" we are to God's blatent presence among us. However, even without recourse to Scriptural revelation, people can still see a divine influence in creation and infer that God exists anyway, even if it's like seeing an imperfect image through a darkened lens at present. This is considered fair game for science as far as I can discern. For example, taking the concept of seeing God through a darkened lens and applying it to a scientific topic, consider the nature of dark matter. According to Joel R. Primack:
Joel writes: Dark matter is the invisible substance that makes up most of the mass of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter is unlike other forms of matter because it does not give off, reflect, or absorb light. Scientists believe that unless the current theory of gravity is wrong, the mass of the universe consists of at least 10 times more dark matter then visible matter. Joel goes on to say:
Joel writes: Scientists first suggested in the 1930's that clusters of galaxies contained much more mass than could be seen. The theory was not taken seriously until the 1970's, when astronomers began measuring the rotational speeds of stars and gas clouds in galaxy. Then, they used the speeds to calculate the amount of matter in a galaxy. Astronomers made these calculations for many galaxies and found that the calculated mass was always greater than the visible mass. Similarly, astronomers have concluded from the velocities of galaxies in clusters that most of the matter in clusters is dark. If one takes this dark matter analogy and applies it to religious stidies, one could note that for many people what we see around us everywhere is considered evidence for God's existence. Or, in other words, the creation itself testifies or bears witness to it's own creator. Remember, I'm not looking to argue over whether the "evidence" itself is valid. I'm more interested in what God himself would consider as evidence of his own existence.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: In other words, even if the Judeo-Christian God appeared before everyone today and said, "Hi! I'm back!" many would still reject what he has to say because...well...they don't like what the Judeo-Christian God has to say. purpledawn writes: See that statement implies that God is concealed or somewhere else. Well...I guess I had in mind the second coming of Christ for this example. In this sense he is considered somehwere else until his return. The church, in his absense, is then relegated to some kind of vicarious indwelling wehere he resides until the time of the parousia. However, in the more general sense, it still doesn't imply that God is concealed -- but rater manifest intuitively through many ways that one might not normally be associated with God presense.
purpledawn writes: Whether many would reject what he has to say would depend on whether God himself spoke or he's talking through mankind again. So we would need proof that it was God and not a hoax. But here you are arguing about whether or not the proof if valid or not. I'm not interested in that discussion. This is a general discussion of whether God himself is determined to hide himself in order to generate faith in himself. I don't think God is determined to hide himself for any reason period -- and I certainly don't think that he would hide himself in order to generate faith in himself. I'm going to have to do a search through the Scriptures for the word "hide" and see how it relates to God in the Scriptures.
search for God and hide displays some of the following writes:
Deuteronomy 31:17 On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?' Deuteronomy 31:18 And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods. Deuteronomy 32:20 "I will hide my face from them," he said, "and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. Job 13:24 Why do you hide your face and consider me your enemy? Psalm 10:1 [ Psalms 9 and 10 may have been originally a single acrostic poem, the stanzas of which begin with the successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Septuagint they constitute one psalm. ] Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? Psalm 27:9 Do not hide your face from me, do not turn your servant away in anger; you have been my helper. Do not reject me or forsake me, O God my Savior. It seems to me that God hiding has very little to nothing to do with him trying to bring people closer to him. The Father even hid his face from the Son when Christ was on the cross -- probably because the Father cannot look upon the face of sin (and Christ was taking on the sins of humanity during that time).
Mr. Ex nihilo writes: Ergo: proof of God's existence =/= faith in him. Likewise: lack of proof of God's existence =/= lack of faith in him. purpledawn writes: Believing is seeing. Seeing is also perception, which involves the necessary congnitive functions of the mind to "see" the pattern in the first place. Furthermore, believing is seeing only to the extent that there is actually something there to see in the first place. The mind can perceive patterns that do not actually exist.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: One must believe in God to "see" proof of his existence and therefore have faith in him. No. One can also see God and then admit that he exists. The faith aspect comes in to the degree that one will trust in what they've seen -- whether through nature, religion, or whatever else one might conceive.
purpledawn writes: IOW one could say that God does hide his existence to generate faith. If you wish to see it that way purpledawn, you're welcome to it. I don't see it that way. Some kind of perception of God (or at least knowledge of him) comes before one places their faith in him. You can disagree with the validity of people's perceptions if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that people are first seeing something and then believing in it later.
purpledawn writes: If you want to "see" God you have to have faith. Uhhh...no you don't. First of all, experience preceeds belief. Second of all, belief in some kind of God (or gods) is so pervasive throughout the world that many have reasonably inferred that there is probably a natural knowledge of the divine, regardless of how fragmented the image of God might appear when viewed from the various collective religions of the world.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: Sure it does. The Scriptural passage of Romans 1:20 tells us, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." purpledawn writes: We don't see that today, unless you believe that natural disasters and disease are sent by God. Well...many primitive people still think that natural disasters and disease are sent by angry spirits or gods. I think what you are saying is that faith preceeds experience. I maintain that experience preceeds faith -- and also that some knowledge of God is naturally inscribed into the soul of all people.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: In regards to science, the Scriptures also state in Colossians 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." purpledawn writes: So how is scientifically substantiating God's existance a bad thing? It's not a bad thing in my opinion. Although others have contended that this would be bad because it would eliminate the need for "faith", I don't recall ever actually saying this or even agreeing that it was.
purpledawn writes: It would put all the confusion to rest. Actually, it's more than "would". It's more like "should" in my opinion.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: In other words, insofar as one is able to perceive the Creator in nature, one is led toward Christ. However, insofar as one is drawn toward the fallen nature of the Creation itself, one is led away from Christ. purpledawn writes: How does scientifically substantiating God's existance lead people away from Christ? It doesn't so long as the image of God they've grasped is in line with the Judeo-Christian concept of God. For example, if one has somehow concluded from their scientific studies of nature that god is actually a pantheon of 12 deities expressed as constellations, and that these deities reveal the future by patterns found within the alignment of planets, stars, and comets -- then one has erroneously derived an image of God which is very far removed from the Judeo-Christian image of God via their scientific studies of nature. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-01-2005 02:47 PM This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-01-2005 03:36 PM This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-01-2005 03:37 PM
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Summary?
Today he does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated for whatever reason. That's one poosible interpretation but it's a pretty weak one IMHO. I see no evidence or indication that GOD in anyway disallows scientific testing or substantiation.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 267 by purpledawn, posted 06-01-2005 7:58 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Belief Without Proof
quote:
This is a general discussion of whether God himself is determined to hide himself in order to generate faith in himself.
It was crashfrog that pointed out some claim that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith. Do you think God is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence -- or do you think that God is determined to allow ample proof or evidence of his existence? Actually crashfrog is right. If God's existence was scientifically substantiated, it would eliminate the need for faith. Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof So if God requires belief without proof then he cannot allow tangible proof or evidence of his existence. This message has been edited by purpledawn, 06-01-2005 04:53 PM
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: 04-12-2005
|
|
Message 274 of 301 (213248)
06-01-2005 6:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
05-31-2005 5:16 AM
|
|
Re: Salvation
Faith writes: This is really more of a general post to you and Mr Ex both. I really don't want to continue arguing the specifics of the topic but I do have two leftover thoughts that continue to nag me. Faith writes: 1) While it may not be completely clear in Romans itself (and I'm not sure it isn't, I just haven't studied it that closely) that "Paul is [not] excluding any other means of salvation than by faith" as you and Mr. Ex have agreed is the case, I really have to disagree that he could mean that becasue of other scriptures. And that's fine Faith. I've never put you down for disagreeing with me. It's when you assign other's thoughts to the realm of delusion (among other things) that most people become less willing to listen to anything you might contribute.
Faith writes: Scripture is so clear elsewhere that "ALL have sinned" and "There is no one good, no not one" and "All our righteousness is as filthy rags" -- and this includes the most righteous among us and the most righteous of all who have ever lived anywhere. I personally have never disagreed with you that the Scriptures say these things about all people (although as a Catholic I do believe that Mary is without sin). What I have disagreed with is the conclusion that this failure on the part of "all people" necessarilly constitutes damnation in all cases without exception.
Faith writes: I picked Confucius and Lao Tsu (well actually I'm not all that sure about Confucius but I have read quite a bit of Taoism) to represent the most righteous because I've been impressed by their basic wisdom which is similar to the Book of Proverbs, but I'd only pick people on that high a level of wisdom and those too are called sinners by the Bible. But one should at least be left wondering how Lao Tsu came to these conclusions without recourse to the Scriptures.
Faith writes: Also, at one time there appeared to be an intuitive understanding that God required sacrifice for sin, so that the righteous Gentiles of the Bible such as Job and Noah and his precursors back to Adam made many sacrifices. So did Abraham. It was understood to be necessary and why? I think it's basic knowledge of humanity that sacrifice makes atonement in some way. We even see this on a natural level when animals participate in traits of self-sacrifice in order to keep their species alive. Consequently, even as Christians, although Christ has completed everything for us, we are still obligated to offer a sacrifice of praise in the direction of the Lord. In this sense, I think anyway, this means that whatever we acknowledge as good and holy should be directed toward the Lord.
Faith writes: Because we're all sinners of course. I don't disagree with you here. I think that we are all sinners too.
Faith writes: Then the laws of the sacrifices given through Moses emphasize this necessity. The idea seems to be that nobody can be saved without sacrifice, such as simply on the basis of their attempts to obey the law of God. This is a good thought in my opinion. It's one that I will dwell on further before commenting.
Faith writes: Therefore, since sacrifice is no longer a part of any major group's relation to God the only basis on which anyone could be saved is the sacrifice of Christ. And that's probably a whole other thread and Mr Ex and maybe you too might want to argue that that sacrifice could be applied to some who don't follow Jesus. This is ultimately what I'm thinking of -- that the sacrifice of Christ is applicable in certain situations to those that do not necessarilly know Christ.
Faith writes: I tend to conclude that nobody is saved without conscious faith in the sacrifice of Christ. How God deals with any halfway-righteous people who don't know Christ I'm just not going to speculate any more. And again, if this is you view, then I respect that. What I have a hard time accepting is the assertion that the Scriptures plainly state this to the point that no other understanding of them are even conceivable.
Faith writes: 2) But the second thing that keeps nagging at me is this strange preoccupation with those who don't know Christ in itself, which is something many people immediately make an issue of, as if it were more important than the fact that in making an issue of it they show that they themselves know the gospel and have rejected it, or if they have accepted it they are complaining about God somehow. This is kind of a loaded statement in my opinion. Certainly you yourself must have wondered at one time or another what will happen to your own loved ones or friends that do not know the Lord? You have never wondered what God will do with those that have never had a chance to hear his message clearly from the Scriptures? If you have, does it mean that you doubt God in doing so? In my opinion, if you have thought about these things, I don't think it implies any spiritual failure on your part. I think it's natural to worry in part about loved ones and friends. I also think it's a natural outpouring of the Spirit to be concerned with those that do not know Christ in the most remote regions of the world. If we didn't worry about others, then we would probably not at all be concerned with spreading the gospel message in the first place.
Faith writes: If they have rejected it, that puts them in far worse danger than anyone who has never heard it. I do agree here faith, with reservation. As I've stated already, I think the nature of the message can directly impact the receiver's ability to receive it. However, there are Scriptural passages for those who have known the Lord and have later rejected him. The Scriptures do not portray the souls of these people in a good light as far as I can tell. II Peter 2:21 states clearly, "It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them."
Faith writes: I mentioned this on the thread somewhere. It's just a strange phenomenon to my mind. Have you honestly never thought about where the souls of your loved ones and your friends that do not know the Lord will go when they have passed on?
Faith writes: In the case of those who reject the gospel, I have to think the point must be merely to find fault with God, and the gospel itself, and really, therefore, to let THEMSELVES off the hook, they who have heard and rejected the gospel. And I think that you make a valid point here. However, we need to be careful that we oursleves do not push others away from God too.
Faith writes: But why Christians get so concerned about this I don't know. Surely we know that God's judgments are perfect, so why probe into things that we won't know until Judgment Day? I don't think that anyone who believes in God will say that they think God's judgments are not fair. All that I've spoken to believe that whatever God decides will be the most fair thing. However, when one states unanimously that those that do not know Christ (through no fault of their their own) will go to hell for not knowing Christ, this makes people take notice. It makes people take notice because all shreads of sane and lucid reasoning conclude that this is acuallay not fair in any sense of the word. It seems to smack in the face all the basic tenents of logic and reasoning. When one goes further, however, and concludes that:
A) their understanding of the Scriptures is the only way to understand them and... B) that God's distributiuon of "their" version of the final judgment is fair because "Everything God does is fair" then... C) then some are left with a loopy, circular feeling trying to understand their perspective on things. Faith writes: And at that point our own standing in Christ is going to be the most important thing to us. But I've never denied that our own standing in Christ is the most important thing to us. I've also never denied that Christ is the one who (I feel based on my understanding of the Scriptures) that would be the one who saves them.
Faith writes: We are addressing an academic point at best in this thread, or an evasion, or at least to my mind it's a puzzling preoccupation for a Christian to have. It's not academic if many of the most learned Christian scholars have struggled with this exact same question over the last 2,000 years. In other words, it's more than academic if people are generally concerned for the eternal life of those that do not know Christ. I admit that many use these arguments to flame the Christian faith. I won't deny that. In this sense, they use these points as rhetorical questions as an excuse not to believe. But that's not how many Christians see it when they have these questions. It's not how I see it anyway. I think there are others here who would agree with me too. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-01-2005 06:40 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by Faith, posted 05-31-2005 5:16 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: What would really work as evidence?
Faith: Curious. Do you have a clear idea of what sort of proof would convince you personally? ===purpledawn: My own needs are very simple. God would need to light a specific new candle at the time I asked him to through silent prayer. ===Chiroptera: My thoughts exactly -- I demand nothing big or dramatic, just the same sort of test the Gideon used. Gideon wasn't testing God to prove His existence, merely wanting to know God's will in a certain instance.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 270 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2005 2:09 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: What would really work as evidence?
I guess your ideas would be good tests, except that I don't think God would honor them since He's given His word for His evidence. I remember someone telling me once that she had asked something similar of God as a child and lost her faith when He didn't comply. However, I do believe He answers a sincere desire to know if He's real or not, that's not just a challenge or a test. I do think if people pray to Him to reveal Himself so that they can believe and they are willing to do it His way instead of their own He answers.
What sort of proof MIGHT be evident to everyone on earth? Can you think of any kind of evidence God could give that wouldn't be picked apart and doubted and explained away by most people?
Simple, reanimate the last Pope under controlled conditions and have witnesses from various walks of life and beliefs. Mankind cannot reanimate people who have been dead this long. God supposedly can. I'd have to agree that only God could do that (though as a Protestant I would have to consider it something less than a benevolent act as it would make the whole world Catholic).
IMO whatever it is needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and something that mankind cannot duplicate. Well in principle all the miracles of the Old Testament were repeatable and verifiable and unduplicable by humanity -- at the time. After the resurrected Pope has died again the miracle won't be any more verifiable than any of the OT miracles. Interesting that you acknowledge the need for witnesses. As for variety, there were Jews and Romans at the crucifixion of Jesus, of the Jews priests and commoners both. There were Roman soldiers there when the angels opened the tomb. There were some Egyptians among the Jews too and they were all of every station in life. But I guess that's not enough diversity for you. At Pentecost there were Jews from all over the Roman Empire who spoke many different languages, all of whom heard their own language spoken by mere Galileans. That's quite a big of diversity, but I guess there's only the written word of Luke that it ever happened at all. Oh well. I hope the Pope isn't revived myself though I know it's a possibility.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 277 of 301 (213268)
06-01-2005 8:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
06-01-2005 7:24 PM
|
|
Re: What would really work as evidence?
quote:
However, I do believe He answers a sincere desire to know if He's real or not, that's not just a challenge or a test. I do think if people pray to Him to reveal Himself so that they can believe and they are willing to do it His way instead of their own He answers.
I'd been a devout Christian all my life. Ten years ago when I started studying the Bible deeply (through guided Bible studies), my prayer before I read each lesson and the Bible was for God to show me the truth of the Bible and the path he wanted me to take. Now I understand the reality of the Christian Bible.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 276 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 7:24 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 278 of 301 (213274)
06-01-2005 8:35 PM
|
|
|
Getting close to Witching Hour.
If anyone has anything to add, now is the time.
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: 04-12-2005
|
Re: Belief Without Proof
purpledawn writes: Actually crashfrog is right. ...in your opinion maybe. In my opinion it is not.
purpledawn writes: If God's existence was scientifically substantiated, it would eliminate the need for faith. Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Yes, but your entire definition of faith requires for there to be "no proof". Plenty of people are claiming for there to be plenty of proof to believe in Jesus, or Muhammad, or whoever you pick. In their mind there is proof regardless of whether other people agree with them or not. For them, the whole point of faith is not a matter of whether God exists or not -- but rather will he be true to his promises.
purpledawn writes: So if God requires belief without proof then he cannot allow tangible proof or evidence of his existence.  No. He accepts both belief with proof and belief without proof -- and usually it's a little bit of both.
NIV writes:
Jesus Appears to Thomas Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Consequently, just because people see him, it doesn't mean that they'll believe in him.
NIV writes:
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. But let's talk about belief for a minute. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Belief Belief in its most basic definition is simply assent to a proposition. Belief in the psychological sense, is a representational mental state that takes the form of a propositional attitude. In the religious sense, "belief" refers to a part of a wider spiritual or moral foundation, generally called faith. My point is that if one is to have faith in God, then they must acknowledge their belief in the "religious sense" and ground it down to a level where it is compatible with belief in the "psychological sense". In other words, you need to not simply "believe" that God is real. You need to know God on a personal level to the point that you can call him your friend and that you really think you are interacting with him in prayer for example. You talk with him. You praise him. You confess your sins to him. You ask him how he feels. You ask him if there is anything bothering him. You try to comfort him when he feels sad and try to calm him down when he gets angry. You even argue with him when you think he's about to cut loose and blow his top. You ask for him to be merciful to those who simply don't understand. Hebrews expresses this thought very well in my opinion by saying, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." In other words, when you're talking about faith, you're implying the persistency of believing in something that you're not sure exists. When I'm taking about faith, I'm talking about listening to God's Spirit and being lead by him (and the issue of whether he exists or not is irrelevent because they already "know" that God is talking to them). One can say that this is just a delusion on the part of the person claiming to talk with God. But who cares? In their mind they're talking with God and they're not really interested in hearing any psychological reasons as to why they're not. In other words, they're walking with God whether others can see God or not.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Belief Without Proof
quote:
Yes, but your entire definition of faith requires for there to be "no proof". Plenty of people are claiming for there to be plenty of proof to believe in Jesus, or Muhammad, or whoever you pick.
You based this thread on a comment from an atheist concerning the claim that today God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith.
firm belief in something for which there is no proof Your contention is that God is determined to allow proof and evidence of his existence and does not conceal himself to generate faith.
Faith - Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. I'm not sure how you thought you were going to show that God has made up his mind to allow evidence without saying what the evidence is. You have shown past evidence from the Christian Bible, but how does that show God's intent today, which I believe is what crashfrog is refering to?
Evidence - Something that makes another thing evident (easy to see or perceive, clear, obvious, plain). Something that tends to prove. You imply that nature is proof that God allows evidence of his existence. I say that nature is proof that God does not allow evidence of his existence.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: 04-12-2005
|
Re: Belief Without Proof
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: Yes, but your entire definition of faith requires for there to be "no proof". Plenty of people are claiming for there to be plenty of proof to believe in Jesus, or Muhammad, or whoever you pick. purpledawn writes: You based this thread on a comment from an atheist concerning the claim that today God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith. Yes. Basically in a nutshell that pretty much covers it.
purpledawn's definition writes: ...firm belief in something for which there is no proof Again, I will stress that your definition of faith requires for there to be "no proof".
purpledawn writes: Your contention is that God is determined to allow proof and evidence of his existence and does not conceal himself to generate faith. Yeah. Basically.
purpledawn writes: Faith - Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. uhhh...ok... *sigh*
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: I'm not sure how you thought you were going to show that God has made up his mind to allow evidence without saying what the evidence is. I thought I had done this.
purpledawn writes: You have shown past evidence from the Christian Bible, but how does that show God's intent today, which I believe is what crashfrog is refering to? First of all, what Paul says in Romans appears to be a universal statement and not just singular to Christianity.
NIV writes: For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20 This statement does not simply apply to a specific region, or even strictly to Christians or Jews for that matter. It basically implies everyone capable of reasoning. But, in addition to this, I've also shown evidence from nature and other religions too. I mean, you might not agree that it's evidence, but if it leads someone to believe in God, then its evidence of a faith in God not based on the Christian Scriptures.
purpledawn writes: Evidence - Something that makes another thing evident (easy to see or perceive, clear, obvious, plain). Something that tends to prove. Yeah...I think we've been over this.
purpledawn writes: You imply that nature is proof that God allows evidence of his existence. I say that nature is proof that God does not allow evidence of his existence. Fine. I guess we disagree. However, I've repeatedly pointed to things in nature and other religions which do bear a striking resemblance to Chrisitanity. I've also noted how these things seems to have led to a spiritual dialectic throughout all of human history eventually leading to its culmination in the Christian faith tha we see today. You can disagree with me if you chose. But all's that you've basically said is, "Well...I think you're wrong because of these definitions of faith that I've quoted here..." In other words, you haven't really countered any arguments that I've laid out in this thread. Here, for one example, let's take a look at Stoicism and note how many similarities it bears toward Christianity:
Holding a somewhat materialistic conception of nature they followed Heraclitus in believing the primary substance to be fire. However, they also embraced his concept of Logos which they identified with the energy, law, reason, and providence found throughout nature. Like Christianity, they held the Logos to be the animating or 'active principle' of all reality. The Logos was conceived as a rational divine power that orders and directs the universe; it was identified with God, nature and fate. Human reason and the human soul were both considered part of the divine Logos, and therefore immortal. The foundation of Stoic ethics is the principle, proclaimed earlier by the Cynics, that good lies in the state of the soul itself, in wisdom and restraint. Stoic ethics stressed the rule "Follow where Reason leads"; one must therefore strive to be free of the passionslove, hate, fear, pain, and pleasure. Similar to Christians being led by the spirit of God, Stoics felt that living according to nature or reason is living in conformity with the divine order of the universe. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance, a classification derived from the teachings of Plato. Very similar to Christianity, a distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism. All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another. They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in social relationships. Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics recognized and advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. Here's more for you to ponder while you're at it:
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/stoicism.html For the Stoics nothing passes unexplained. There's a reason for everything in Nature. They believed there is an active "force" which is everywhere coextensive with matter. The Stoics believed that there was something acting within them as they put it "a spirit deeply infused, germinating and developing as from a seed in the heart of each separate thing that exists." For the Stoics God was Fire (active energy) and Logos (reason) diffused throughout the Cosmos. They believed, too, that the Law of Nature was God's material presence in the Universe. As cosmic reason, God was Providence. This Providence ordained all things.God was Fate, too.The Stoics believed Fate imposed upon humanity a certain determinism that allowed for freedom only within the context of a person's inner acceptance of cosmic necessity. As for Fire, the Stoics likened this concept of God as seed that having in itself the "reasons of all things and the causes of what was, is, and shall be. "This energy was the vital principle from which all the flora and fauna springs. The Stoics considered that through any stage of development, it was God (as a living force) who molded and dominated passive matter in terms of "progress." The Stoics believed in soul even for the animals, though not a rational soul. In rational creatures, however, they considered the Pneuma (fiery breath) to be manifested at a higher degree of intensity as an "emanation from the world-soul." This Pneuma was a spark of the celestial Fire. Essentially the Stoics believed that what God is for the world, the soul is for man. They declared that the Cosmos must be viewed as a single Whole with its "variety being referred to varying stages of condensation in Pneuma." Therefore, for the Stoics, the actual nature of a human person is the universal on a small scale a microcosm. There is a parallel between the macrocosm and the microcosm. God, the Soul of the World, fills and penetrates it. Similarly, the human soul pervades and breathes through all the body informing and guiding it. In both the macrocosm and the microcosm, there is a ruling part. The Stoics considered each human soul a "fragment of the universal divine force, yet not completely sundered from the parent-stock." They were talking about family. They declared that "We are thy offspring!" Out of their cosmology the Stoics developed their ethics which focused on Virtue. They believed Virtue to be the law that governed the Universe. For them, that which Reason (God/Logos) ordained must be accepted as binding upon the "particle of reason which is in each one of us." In turn, human law comes into existence when persons recognize this obligation hence justice, responsibility, and freedom revolved around this obligation to God. The Stoics expressed these ethics further into the ideas of community. The individual must recognize the "society of rational beings of which he is a member, and subordinate his own ends to the ends and needs of this society" the city of Zeus. This city of Zeus was the ideal cosmopolis. In this city, the Stoics believed all is ordained by reason working intelligently. The citizens exist for the sake of one another, working towards contributing towards one another's good. Such intercourse would find expression in justice, in friendship, in family and political life. More specifically in their own times the Stoics boldly and bravely declared there was no difference "between Greek and barbarian, between male and female, and bond and free." All persons were members of "one body as partaking in reason." In terms of religion, the Stoics felt that its essential features were not ceremony or sacrifice, but prayer, self-examination, and praise. As they put it: "God is best worshiped in the shrine of the heart by the desire to know and obey him." How does one explain these Greeks developing a system of living (from their perceptions of nature) which so closely parallels Christianity -- but was developed 300 years before Christianity even came about?
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: 04-12-2005
|
|
|
Message 282 of 301 (213568)
06-02-2005 2:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 253 by jar
05-31-2005 11:59 AM
|
|
Re: General reply for all participants...
jar writes: Amen Brother. Can I get a 'Hallelujah?' As my dear Mom used to say, "Your actions speak louder than words." Sorry I missed this before. Amen brother. I'll be honest jar in admitting that we probably might not agree on many things regarding our Christian faith. But in this regard I think we are very much in agreement -- and for this I send out to you out a very large HALLELUJAH! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 253 by jar, posted 05-31-2005 11:59 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Belief Without Proof
BTW I'm not giving definitions so you can agree or not agree. I'm showing you how I am using the word so you can answer accordingly.
quote:
First of all, what Paul says in Romans appears to be a universal statement and not just singular to Christianity.
Paul's statement is centuries old. He speaks of evidence in his time. Paul cannot attest to God's will or existence today. Nature may show that God existed, but what today shows that God has made up his mind to allow evidence that he still exists today?
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: 04-12-2005
|
Re: Belief Without Proof
purpledawn writes: Paul's statement is centuries old. He speaks of evidence in his time. Paul cannot attest to God's will or existence today. uh...yeah...and what evidence was he refering to? um...wasn't it nature? Are you trying to tell me that nature doesn't exist anymore? What do you think that Paul is talking about when he says, "...being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." And what about all the other things I mentioned, such a primitive monotheisms for example, or the similarities in Stoicism and Christianity for another example? All these things bear a striking resemblance to the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and these understandings came about (especially in the case of Stoicism) by people's understanding of nature.
purpledawn writes: I'd been a devout Christian all my life. Ten years ago when I started studying the Bible deeply (through guided Bible studies), my prayer before I read each lesson and the Bible was for God to show me the truth of the Bible and the path he wanted me to take. Now I understand the reality of the Christian Bible. And what would that be by the way? Just curious. Edit: I have to admit that this statement below got me curious.
purpledawn writes: Nature may show that God existed... I think the more correct word is "exists" as is in "Nature may show that God exists..."
purpledawn writes: ...but what today shows that God has made up his mind to allow evidence that he still exists today? I think nature itself testifies to God's existence independently of whether man is around to grasp it or not. I'm not sure if this is the direction that you're going, but some of your points here seem to be leaning in the direction of the question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?" My answer to this question is yes it does make a sound regardless of whether man is there to hear it or not. Likewise, just as a tree does make a sound regardless of whether man is there to hear it or not, so too does nature testify to its creator irregardless of whether mankind even exists or not. Does that clarify things? This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-02-2005 02:53 PM This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-02-2005 04:09 PM This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-02-2005 04:15 PM
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Belief Without Proof
purpledawn writes: Paul's statement is centuries old. He speaks of evidence in his time. Paul cannot attest to God's will or existence today. quote:
um...wasn't it nature?
The Creator created the world (nature). The nature you see around you now is not the same nature that He created millions of years ago. Yes it is the same foundation, but my trees weren't there. There are new species of animals, trees, etc. and some have gone extinct. The trees in my back yard were started from seed. The Creator didn't create that tree for me, He didn't create that specific seed for me. The seed came from the tree. He created the system so to speak. You can say nature is evidence of a creator, fine, but it isn't tangible evidence that the creator is still present. You can say you can know the Creator's character from looking at nature, fine, but it isn't tangible evidence that the Creator is still present.
quote:
What do you think that Paul is talking about when he says, "...being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Nature, but nature is not the Creator. Nature is the creation.
quote:
And what about all the other things I mentioned, such a primitive monotheisms for example, or the similarities in Stoicism and Christianity for another example? All these things bear a striking resemblance to the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and these understandings came about (especially in the case of Stoicism) by people's understanding of nature.
They all had the same picture to look at, nature.
quote:
I think the more correct word is "exists" as is in "Nature may show that God exists..."
The Creator obviously existed when he created nature. After creation the Bible doesn't mention God creating anything new from scratch. So nature continued on its own. Unless you can show that the Creator is still creating things from scratch, then nature does not show that the creator is still present. Now the miracles described in the OT made God's presence known, not nature.
quote:
I'm not sure if this is the direction that you're going, but some of your points here seem to be leaning in the direction of the question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?"
Nope wasn't going there at all. Pretty much asked a straight forward question.
purpledawn writes: ...but what today shows that God has made up his mind to allow evidence that he still exists today? If you read some of my posts and threads I've started in the BA&I Forum, you will probably get a basic idea of what I mean by reality of the Christian Bible.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
™ Version 4.2