Now before I begin I want to let people understand something about faith. Everybody regardless of belief system (including atheism and agnosticism which I will get to in a minute) has a measure of faith to it. Faith being trust and belief in something that goes beyond their senses and into the realm of pure belief. I believe, though others may be free to argue, that everyone has beliefs that are basic and essential to them to function beyond their basic five senses:1. We all believe in the existence of person hood in others. That the people in our lives are people like ourselves.
2. We all could not function without memory beliefs. When I get out of work I get in my car and head home even though the existence of my home is not evident to my five senses.
3. People believe in love -- hold it, measure it, describe it visually, can you hear it, taste it. Hmmm. Seems love and other stuff like it are basic beliefs that are not really evident to the five senses.
Now -- atheists have this same problem though they deny it. They believe in a Big Bang -- they have never witnessed it. They believe in evolution -- ditto. Then they laugh at me for believing in a God, I can't see -- irony. There is an arrogance of mind to atheists who look in the face of their colossal ignorance of mankind about the universe and its nature and say they understand exactly how things were and are and will be. The statement --"There is no God" is ultimately just as big a statement of faith as "There is a God". Logically, 'There is no God' is a universal negative and universal negatives are the most hard to prove. To prove it you would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and have the power so nothing could block your ability to assess the question. This is not possible for any human and so the atheist is taking something very much on 'faith' when he says: 'The is no God.' It is actually a great leap of faith given that he is a finite being with a limited knowledge and only his limited education in his life and experiences to go on.
Agnosticism I can take better because they are at least willing to admit how ignorant they are and that there are some things that they may never know including whether there is a God or not. Most dismiss religion as an attempt to control and for the most part they are right. Most of the better ones though come back with the idea that there indeed may be a religion that is right, but how can you know which one? I understand the issues of agnosticism well because I considered it for a long year. I believe that it is a sensible option, but it may have its perils. Agnostics put faith in their reason and humanity much like atheists, but I think we can all admit that faith in both of these things can fail as well because of their limitations.
Now, what about the person who says -- There is a God. In some respect he is in a better position logically universal positives do not require as much effort to prove -- once you find evidence of God's existence that would be conclusive you can stop searching the universe. The problem is given the same limitations we can't do this either.
What we are left with is the hope that said God will reveal himself to us and show us He is real. Now that is what all religions in one sense or another claim has happened in one form or another. They all claim some divine revelation from a divine source that proves that their version of God, or the gods, or Karma or etc. is true.
What remains then is to assess if a religion has had a genuine visitation by the divine that can be verified. Which one the rises to a level where it stands highest in the most likely to be true.
Can we prove God exists conclusively -- no, but I believe that it is possible to prove which version of divine reality is the most true and provides the surest foundation for faith -- which all humans have.
So are You saying that we should be looking at what our God has done for us, or how He has changed us. Or how He provides for us. Or the prayers He has answered for us ??? But what about the Prayers that did not get answered ?
ReplyDeleteGod can't lie. He told us to ask and believe.
This can sometimes cause one to doubt and question why. As You once stated Why did my daughter die. Does God perform His word when He wants to, or does not want to ??? Bill Scofield
No, I think those fall under the personal religious experience line, I am looking at the claims of a religion asa whole. For Christianity, The New Testament claims that Jesus rose form the dead. This is BIG claim that if it can be historically verified lends tremendous credibilty to the rest of the claims of Christianity. When a religion makes a claim as something as true and it can be verified using reason and common sense, that lends major credibility to the religion as whole being true.
ReplyDeleteAs for Prayer, that is going to be the subject of my next post so stay tuned and thanks for the questions.
When I hold a can of corn in my hand, I believe in the existence of a farmer... I believe in a tractor in a barn... I believe in a worker in a tractor factory... I believe in a truck driver that delivered the corn to the canning factory... I believe in a lady wearing a stupid looking white smock and hat in a that canning factory... I believe in a stock clerk (mabybe at Walmart) that put that can on the shelf. I haven't seen any of these people, but it would be insane to suggest that they don't exist just because I have never seen them.
ReplyDeleteI can prove that God exists with my index finger! It is the perfect size. It is too large to poke out my ear drum when I scratch an itch in my ear; likewise, it is small enough for me to pick my nose!
IMHO, the question of "Can I prove there a God" is not the important one... The question is: "What kind of a God is he and is it possible to know him in a relationship sort of way?"
The existence of the "farmer" is completely provable. What I can't know (merely by holding the can of corn in my hand) is what kind of a man he is and whether it is worthwhile or even possible for me to have a relationship with him.
When I pick my nose, I know that there is a Master Designer / God. What I don't know is whether he loves me or not. (I suppose that is argueable, since giving us the ability to pick our noses is a nice thing to be able to do. I mean... think about it... It would really have been a mean thing to do; to have not given us a convenient way to pick a booger! Don't you agree?) However, that doesn't seem to be your question. As for whether or not there is absolute proof of the existence of a God... The answer is an absolute, "Yes!".
Even if the "multitude" of gods were correct, your own statement (one god giving orders to another - "make sure you make the finger ...") would indicate that there is a Master God... a Master Designer to which all others are subordinate. At which point there is only "one" true Sovereign God.
ReplyDeleteI am confused by your conclusion that "design" is not an absolute proof. What is required for your definition of absolute? Are we to conclude that absolute proof must somehow meet the test of one or more of the 5 senses... Do I have to be able to see it? Or smell it? Or taste it... in order for the proof to be absolute? Certainly this can not be the "standard" for proof. It is a fact that we don't see with our eyes; we see with our brain. In fact, our eyes (and the brain's interpretation of the images sent by the eyes) are very limited indeed in regard to reality - think "infra-red" spectrum... think mono-vision contacts. Likewise, we don't smell with our noses; we smell with our brain. Our brain begins to dismiss odors within a very few minutes after first sensing them. The reality of the odor is still present, but we can no longer "smell" it.
I would conclude that the "senses" are a very poor evidence upon which to rely. And, that "design", even the requirement of a Master designer, is indeed an "absolute" proof.
*****
My comments about believing in several "unseen" players in the getting the corn from the dirt to the dinner plate illustration are in no way intended to suggest that I believe in a multiplicity of gods, but rather to simply demonstrate that it is sane and reasonable to "absolutely" believe in that which I have not seen.
Now that I think about it... this illustration doesn't demonstrate a multiplicity of gods, but in fact, one: Need. All the players in this illustration are subordinate to the "god" of man's need for something yummy to eat... which then points to a single Master Designer God that made us with certain dietary requirements... furthermore (and this might be a stretch), a God that loves me enough to give me taste buds that in turn make something that must be done in order to survive sooooo wonderfully enjoyable.
KC,
ReplyDeleteThe design argument for God's existence has been around for a long time. It may prove the existence of a designer or design team, but it is still miles from proving a Single God or the God of the Bible being the God there is. I am not offering up a new criticism of the design argument but one that critics use. My aim is to improve apoligetics and one thing we are going to have to admit is that there is no single 'silver-bullet' argument that proves the existence of God.
Agreed that the five senses are not adequate, I made that point in the orginal post. We all indeed beleive in other things beyond them.
absolute - adj. free from imperfection, Perfect, being able to stand by itself (Webster's dictonary)