[quote]ZEB wrote:
We know in our hearts through our own personal experiences that God exists. This cannot be proven by either you or I, yet we still know.
[/quote]
Please share these experiences. I, for one, promise not to make fun. I am sincerely curious as to what it is that has given you such strong faith. I realize that I sometimes get cranky on these threads, but that’s because I’m fed up with the stereotype that my choice to question God’s existence puts me in the same boat as Stalin and Hitler or will somehow ruin society as we know it. I’ve tried to believe, I really have. It just never took.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:That’s fine, but for some of us, blind faith is simply not good enough. >>>[/quote] How well I understand. It’s right there in the 1st chapter of Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:It doesn’t make us bad. >>>[/quote] Of course not. It’s a symptom [quote]MikeTheBear wrote: It doesn’t mean we all reject God so we can pursue some a hedonistic lifestyle. It means we’re skeptical. Skepticism is not necessarily a bad quality. >>>[/quote] It makes no difference what specific reason is given for rejecting the gospel. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote: I also refuse to play Pascal’s Wager and believe “just in case.” That’s dishonest and not real belief. >>>[/quote] I couldn’t agree with this more [quote]MikeTheBear wrote: If there is a God, and there is a day of reckoning when I die, I’m willing to bet that this God is a logical, rational being, and He will get why I chose to be skeptical. >>>"[/quote]Or this. Nobody gets it better than He does. It is His decreed design after all.
Was this the continuation of a conversation between you and me? I don’t even remember.
Why on earth would you assume I had NOT read the existential philosophers?
I would rather remain “in my ass” (huh?) than read any more Satre. Ugh. I’ve read plenty and understand his nihilism-lite position all too well. Reading Sartre is like watching Event Horizon. I watched it once. And now I never, ever, ever, ever, evereverevereverever want to watch it again.
You claim kicking old ladies is not wrong and I’m the one who’s supposed to defend my position? What world is it you are posting from, again? [/quote]
This response really made me want to post again. You’re really using #4 as an argument? Really? “OMG it’s so cute and helpless, must protect.” Really? I would love to hear a real argument against existentialism from you, instead of just, “yeah, I read it back in '94, that shit blew.” Because, like, if you didn’t get it, I could, like, totally explain it to you, brah.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Yawn) When you guys get done are going to start comparing apples to oranges? Why does this drone on endlessly? Science cannot prove God exists because it’s faith based. The Bible clearly states that “it is impossible to please God without faith”. God will never be proven by science. Really, that should settle it right?
Science is science and faith is faith. Two separate and distinctly different things.
Is this enough to please anyone other than me?[/quote]The God I know will never squeeze Himself into a petri dish and submit to the poking and probing of some eggheaded unbelievers at some eggheaded university somewhere.
The bible doesn’t even try to prove God’s existence. It simply assumes it. Genesis 1:1a “In the beginning God”.
[/quote]
But we both know there is nothing wrong with science. Science has given us some magnificent things far too numerous to mention. But as I said, it is not faith, in fact they are almost diametrically opposed. Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical world gained through observations and experimentation. It is able to produce hard evidence which helps us deduce facts. How can this be compared to something which almost by definition is the exact opposite? We know in our hearts through our own personal experiences that God exists. This cannot be proven by either you or I, yet we still know.
Atheists should no more attack those of us who believe in God than we should attack them for their strong belief in science. There is plenty of room for both in a world that needs answers to its many problems.
Naturally as Christians we want to reach out and evangelize. We want everyone to have what we have. If I didn’t feel this way I would have to doubt my own faith. But any Christian who is caught in a debate attempting to “prove” there is a God does not honor God and will also fail to create a convert out of the one he is debating. These threads are nothing but a circus created by either naive Christians or atheists who are itching for a fight to flex their latest philosophical leanings.
I say, good for science long may it flourish and help mankind - And I thank God for his mighty grace and mercy and his son Jesus Christ who came to save believers through his blood shed on the cross!
[/quote]
You have to be laughing at your desk while you write this stuff. I’m not being facetious. I just don’t understand how a truly rational being could believe this. What separates science from faith?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
<<< But we both know there is nothing wrong with science. Science has given us some magnificent things far too numerous to mention. >>>[/quote]Absolutely not and absolutely.
I don’t know if I’d characterize evidentialist apologetics as naive. It’s just… Arminian =] Which I am most assuredly not. Cornelius Van Til baby. He revolutionized my understanding of absolutely everything. After Calvin himself, Van Til was the greatest human influence my life has ever had. What a mighty instrument of the Lord that guy was.
A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Christian Theistic Evidences, The Defense of the Faith (my first of his). It took a little while to grasp his “transcendental” method because it is not natural but one day all at once it flooded my mind with understanding and the bible was absolutely alive after that. Totally different than before. I don’t know how I got on all that.
A short piece. http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
[quote]ephrem wrote: On the subject of psychology and the assumption of self in regards to religion
As Tirubulus pointed out, religion [Christianity[ has nothing to gain from a deeper understanding of self. >>>[/quote]The indwelling presence of the designer along with His written Word provide not only the very deepest, but also the only authentic view of self that will ever exist.
Contrary to what you may think some useful statistical/observational data has been gleaned by even the most vicious God hating pagan psychology departments. On that level they provide some very solid empirical evidence for the gospel because they can’t help it. It’s when they start interpreting that the sin REALLY starts flowing.
Mental issues caused by verifiable and quantifiable physical defects fall under the field of medicine in my view and will never be what I’m referring to when disparaging “psychology”. Oh yeah, I never mentioned Freud once, but he was at one time a true icon in that world, but that was then.
[/quote]
How would you classify this case? Religious madness, or plain madness?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Yawn) When you guys get done are going to start comparing apples to oranges? Why does this drone on endlessly? Science cannot prove God exists because it’s faith based. The Bible clearly states that “it is impossible to please God without faith”. God will never be proven by science. Really, that should settle it right?
Science is science and faith is faith. Two separate and distinctly different things.
Is this enough to please anyone other than me?[/quote]
Parthenogenesis in humans is a matter for science.
I still feel like a major point is being ignored here.
Faith is not fact. It is not knowledge. It is nothing more than the desire for something to be true.
Why in the world would someone choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence? And why would they go so far as to insist that their belief represents reality, while the faith of others is somehow misguided?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I still feel like a major point is being ignored here.
Faith is not fact. It is not knowledge. It is nothing more than the desire for something to be true.
Why in the world would someone choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence? And why would they go so far as to insist that their belief represents reality, while the faith of others is somehow misguided?[/quote]
I want to know how people can:
a) be comfortable having faith in one diety
b) and not in another diety
yet not recognise that their faith is no more justifiable than in the diety they disbelieve in! And if do they recognise this, why continue to assert that their belief has any more truth to it than an equally fervent believer of another faith.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< Parthenogenesis in humans is a matter for science.[/quote]Very good Mak. Parthenogenesis? I haven’t heard that word in years.
Luke 1:30-35: Emphases according to the NASB translators. The caps are a quote from the 7th chapter of the book of the prophet Isaiah.
[quote]30-The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31-"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32-“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33-and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34-Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35-The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. [/quote] Matthew 1:18-25:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Yawn) When you guys get done are going to start comparing apples to oranges? Why does this drone on endlessly? Science cannot prove God exists because it’s faith based. The Bible clearly states that “it is impossible to please God without faith”. God will never be proven by science. Really, that should settle it right?
Science is science and faith is faith. Two separate and distinctly different things.
Is this enough to please anyone other than me?[/quote]
ZEB no offence but most of your posts are stupid - You’re making a random assumption that we will never get evidence of gods existence, or lack there of. Causal determinism comes to mind - sure faith is different to science but often in the absence of a logical/rational argument, we substitute a stupid/irrational one. Ritual is often substituted in the absence of such logical evidence…So no, what your saying is not good enough.
[/quote]
Now why would I take offense? My assumptions are based on my Christian faith. The existence of God will never be proven based on many, many passages in the Bible. Atheists do not believe in the Bible, I get it. So no offense to you but your post seems naive.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We know in our hearts through our own personal experiences that God exists. This cannot be proven by either you or I, yet we still know.
[/quote]
Please share these experiences. I, for one, promise not to make fun. I am sincerely curious as to what it is that has given you such strong faith. I realize that I sometimes get cranky on these threads, but that’s because I’m fed up with the stereotype that my choice to question God’s existence puts me in the same boat as Stalin and Hitler or will somehow ruin society as we know it. I’ve tried to believe, I really have. It just never took.[/quote]
I will PM you my experiences if you’d like. As for those lumping you with Hitler, pay no attention. Some people need more time to come to gain faith, others come by it quickly and still others never have faith. Only God knows your heart and where you will eventually land.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
<<< Now why would I take offense? My assumptions are based on my Christian faith. The existence of God will never be proven based on many, many passages in the Bible. Atheists do not believe in the Bible, I get it. So no offense to you but your post seems naive.
[/quote]Along these lines is why I am constantly hung up on biblical principle and quote scripture alot here. The holy one of Israel says His word never returns void, but accomplishes whatever purpose he has for it/Him.
It doesn’t bother me a bit when people snicker and scorn. Not my problem. I’m told to proclaim His Word. He takes care of whatever else happens. I have no idea if anything I say here will ever impact anybody or not. I do know I will never be able to accomplish with my sharp debating skills what only His Spirit can.
That’s for self described unbelievers. People claiming God and Christ especially, are a whole different arena.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< Parthenogenesis in humans is a matter for science.[/quote]Very good Mak. Parthenogenesis? I haven’t heard that word in years.
Luke 1:30-35: Emphases according to the NASB translators. The caps are a quote from the 7th chapter of the book of the prophet Isaiah.
[quote]30-The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31-"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32-“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33-and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34-Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35-The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. [/quote] Matthew 1:18-25:
All you have done is quote scripture and ignored the point.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< All you have done is quote scripture and ignored the point.[/quote]A penetrating analysis indeed. =] That’s exactly what I’ve done. Look, once you accept that the God of the bible is God indeed? Trivial matters like a virgin birth and whether men can be free, accountable and predestined all at the same time take care of themselves.
I’ll give ya a good one and this will answer Brother Chris from a while back as well. The bible clearly states that God does not and in fact cannot change, either His mind or His being. (It also states that He was sorry He made man in Genesis Ch. 6, but that’s another story). How can a God who never changes now have His second person (let’s not even try that one now either) in heaven with a body that He once did not have? Especially when he is is not subject to time? (or space). HOW!!!
Here we have an omnipresent God who Jesus Himself said is a spirit, now confined to the body of an infant, but not really as we see later on… maybe. If fallen creaturely logic is the final arbiter then the gospel dies on the incarnation alone and I didn’t even scratch the surface. No trouble for me because I don’t take my fallen creaturely logic as the final arbiter of anything. It won’t do any good to point out, but have you ever even considered how arrogant and presumptuous that is? Whatever can’t fit into your puny pathetic little mind that skates through here in the blink of an historic eye cannot be true?
You might ask, “well then how can we know ANYTHING?.” I’m telling you how. When He installs as your most absolutely foundational presupposition His own unsearchable mind, only then can you factually know anything at all and in fact in a sense (reverently speaking) you then know everything because He lives His life though you. Everything is explained in Him… EVERYTHING… and you no longer have that disturbing unsettled sense that there really are no answers to ultimate questions.
Does this mean curiosity or the pursuit of advanced knowledge is thereby quenched? May it never be!!! On the contrary. They are infinitely enhanced because you now see them as the unavoidable reflection of the God you know and love instead of sterile, ultimately meaningless pieces of information that may or may not have originated in some comprehensively speculative and impersonal “singularity”. Genuine Christian regeneration is utterly trans-formative or a lie.