Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PMVCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you ask me God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart because if Moses had be able to depart the very first time he asked to with all the people Israel, God wouldn’t have ever been able to show His great might…

The passage you quoted about the son of David dying after the 7th day is actually supportive of Jesus and can have a Messianic meaning…

You keep pointing to Messianic stuff in Scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. Abraham and his son are that - the prefiguring of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament accounts.
What you’re telling me is that it is OK for God to kill people so long as it adds some nice symbolism to the bible? Why would God create the Egyptians if his only use for them was to “demonstrate his might” by scaring and killing them? That is something an evil tyrant would find acceptable, not a benevolent father figure.

Now, I’m the first one to acknowledge that most of the stuff in the old testament (e.g. the entire exodus) never actually happened. Therefore, God probably didn’t actually kill anyone. However, my understanding has always been that even if the old testament is a-historical, it is supposed to be teaching us something about God. What I learn from the old testament is that God doesn’t let human lives get in the way of a good story.
 
I agree. I also see him in the origin of life. Science has no definitive explanation for the jump from inanimate matter to living, single cell critters with the ability to look for and digest food, and the ability to reproduce.
It may be better if you don’t think of it as a ‘jump’. I see too many people assume that on one day it was just inanimate material and then at half past four, 5 billion years ago last Tuesday, all of a sudden there was life.

Science doesn’t have an exact definition of what life entails. Yes, there are the usual suspects such as reproduction, growth etc. but it’s a very fuzzy line. Pick any material from a few billion years ago and it may exhibit some of the criteria but not all. Other entities will have more criteria but different ones. Which one is ‘more’ alive than the other?

Abstract from Cleland, Chyba (2002): “There is no broadly accepted definition of ‘life.’ Suggested definitions face problems, often in the form of robust counter-examples. Here we use insights from philosophical investigations into language to argue that defining ‘life’ currently poses a dilemma analogous to that faced by those hoping to define ‘water’ before the existence of molecular theory. In the absence of an analogous theory of the nature of living systems, interminable controversy over the definition of life is inescapable.” http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life’s_working_definition.html
Even before reproduction you see that matter was endowed with or directed by some kind of intelligence, though- that it progressed and transformed itself from simpler to more complex forms, life being a whole other incredible degree of that same process/direction.
A crystal will take material from its environment and grow and it will react to stimulus. It can also reproduce. Is it intelligent?
Sounds like you’ve got a justification for eugenics going on in your mind.
Don’t be silly.
 
A testable claim! Will you hang your faith on and by this issue? Will you firmly assert that you believe God was the cause of life, and there is no naturalistic explanation? If science finds such an explanation, will you admit your faith was a lousy criteria for determining true statements from false ones?
Why is a “naturalistic” explanation necessarily contrary to God? When we say that God does things, we don’t necessarily mean “it’s magic!” We mean, its God’s will, perhaps even a special intervention, but it need not- in fact, it probably does not- violate natural laws. God can certainly act without observing natural laws, but its a little odd for God to create these laws and yet constantly violate them in order to act. It seems to me that the practically the only reason God has to violate natural laws is to get our attention. Otherwise, why would he?

For example, God creates every single soul and all life, not only in the past, but continually in the present. When we are born, it is God which wills it, and God which animates and ensouls us. That in no way violates biological realities and facts. It doesn’t have to be unexplainable “magic” to be God. The natural universe is God’s work. God does not need to break his work and his laws to act.
A crystal will take material from its environment and grow and it will react to stimulus. It can also reproduce. Is it intelligent?
I am not saying that something like a crystal is intelligent. In fact, I am saying that an intelligence runs throughout the universe- a movement from simpler to more complex forms since the beginning. I believe the author of that intelligence to be God. As above, I don’t see any contradiction with scientific explanations. “Naturalistic” explanations are something else- because they are within a philosophical system that negates anything beyond the material, so no explanation can lie beyond. Science, on the other hand, does not claim to be a full explanation of reality.
 
Hello JapaneseKappa.
So lets be clear about what you are saying. You are telling me that the slaughter of Amalek, and God’s slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt was not a violation of those people’s free will. However, if God had simply not created or found some way to convince those people to convert, he would have been violating their free will. I think this is very simply wrong…
I’ll be clear as well. You are judging God. He also wiped out everyone living creature on the face of the planet, man and beast alike in the great Flood. The only ones spared were Noah and his family. Why don’t you judge that as well?

Glenda
 
Hell JapaneseKappa.
What you’re telling me is that it is OK for God to kill people so long as it adds some nice symbolism to the bible? Why would God create the Egyptians if his only use for them was to “demonstrate his might” by scaring and killing them? That is something an evil tyrant would find acceptable, not a benevolent father figure.

Now, I’m the first one to acknowledge that most of the stuff in the old testament (e.g. the entire exodus) never actually happened. Therefore, God probably didn’t actually kill anyone. However, my understanding has always been that even if the old testament is a-historical, it is supposed to be teaching us something about God. What I learn from the old testament is that God doesn’t let human lives get in the way of a good story.
I will attempt to answer your many questions, but I ask that you show more respect for my religion. Your comments are beginning to sound derogatory rather than academic.

Your first question’s answer is yes, God can do whatever He wills, even take life.

To your second question, I add my own to you: should God only allow those to exist those He will save? Free will in human life is what makes the earth populated - people having sex and giving birth. Whatever social structures they are in when they do so pretty much defines their existence. In Egypt, they made lots of little Egyptians and the Jews were there in Exile, thus the mingling of the two ethnic groups. God brought them out of Exile with His mighty hand outstretched as the Bible accounts.

I also need to say this for further discussions with you JK: the Bible to me is a historical book and also is the Word of God to me. It is a part of my religion and I hold it dear as do many here at the Forums, so please try to be more respectful towards that, okay?

Glenda
 
To your second question, I add my own to you: should God only allow those to exist those He will save? Free will in human life is what makes the earth populated - people having sex and giving birth. Whatever social structures they are in when they do so pretty much defines their existence. In Egypt, they made lots of little Egyptians and the Jews were there in Exile, thus the mingling of the two ethnic groups. God brought them out of Exile with His mighty hand outstretched as the Bible accounts.
There is currently another thread on this topic, getting into the subject here might be derailing this thread. In that thread I took the position that yes: if God loved us he would not bother to create people who he would not ultimately save. Here I will simply say that just because the Egyptians were the “bad guys” in the biblical story doesn’t make them any less human. There is no reason I can think of that an omnipotent benevolent being would need to create human beings for the sole purpose of killing them later as a demonstration. In fact, there is no reason I can think of that an omnipotent benevolent being would allow his beloved humans suffer from random natural disasters either.

I will pose a very simple question: Imagine yourself in a world without natural suffering, if you looked around yourself and saw that lack of suffering, would you conclude to yourself “This lack of suffering is evidence against the existence of God! If God loved us, he would cause us to suffer in this life.”

I suspect that you would not. You would look around and say: “It is thanks to God that we live without natural suffering. Clearly God is benevolent.” Regardless, if you try to claim that neither the presence nor absence of suffering counts as evidence against God then you are basically saying that God’s benevolence makes no predictions about how much he will make his creation suffer. To me, this means that the “benevolent” label is as meaningless as the “all natural” labels at the grocery store.
I also need to say this for further discussions with you JK: the Bible to me is a historical book and also is the Word of God to me. It is a part of my religion and I hold it dear as do many here at the Forums, so please try to be more respectful towards that, okay?
Its one thing to argue that a book has spiritual truth, and another to argue that it has historical truth. You can make whatever spiritual claims you want because they are unfalsifiable, but there are things we do know about history. I don’t take the historical claims of young earth creationists seriously at all because they don’t stand up to even the most basic investigation. The historicity of the exodus is only slightly better off because it is a more ambiguous event. People can and do argue that the biblical account isn’t 100% accurate (e.g. the biblical dates or population counts weren’t quite right) and thereby give themselves enough wiggle room to dodge any archaeological evidence that contradicts the biblical account. However the majority of the evidence does appear to contradict the biblical account, and I see no reason to engage in the mental gymnastics that would be required to salvage the possibility of an “exodus.”
 
I’ll be clear as well. You are judging God. He also wiped out everyone living creature on the face of the planet, man and beast alike in the great Flood. The only ones spared were Noah and his family. Why don’t you judge that as well?
There are too many examples of God killing people, I have to omit some for brevity’s sake. Most people intuitively realize that the Noah story is entirely mythical, so it doesn’t have the sort of impact other stories do. It’s one thing to kill everyone off in a fairy tale, its quite another to order a genocide in a purportedly-historical account.
 
A testable claim! Will you hang your faith on and by this issue? Will you firmly assert that you believe God was the cause of life, and there is no naturalistic explanation? If science finds such an explanation, will you admit your faith was a lousy criteria for determining true statements from false ones?
What do you mean will you firmly assert? I am firmly asserting. God’s existence is an irrefutable slam dunk fact of reality. And St Thomas was able to firmly assert this particular point 800 years ago using unaided (i.e., by divine revelation) philosophical reasoning. This point isn’t even faith to me. God Bless.
 
What do you mean will you firmly assert? I am firmly asserting. God’s existence is an irrefutable slam dunk fact of reality. And St Thomas was able to firmly assert this particular point 800 years ago using unaided (i.e., by divine revelation) philosophical reasoning. This point isn’t even faith to me. God Bless.
I see. You so happily declared " I also see him in the origin of life. Science has no definitive explanation for the jump from inanimate matter to living" but you have now retreated from this claim and run back to “first cause” type reasoning.

I was hoping that you would have the courage to assert that “The origin of life was God’s doing and there can be no natural explanation” but it looks like that is not the case. You must have come to the realization that if you ever tie your faith to a falsifiable claim like that one, then your faith runs the risk of being falsified.

I wonder if this realization will stop you from “seeing” God in the origin of life, or if you will continue to insinuate that science’s current ignorance on the topic is evidence of God, despite lacking the confidence to actually make the claim.
 
Hello JapaneseKappa.
… if God loved us he would not bother to create people who he would not ultimately save…There is no reason I can think of that an omnipotent benevolent being would need to create human beings for the sole purpose of killing them later as a demonstration. In fact, there is no reason I can think of that an omnipotent benevolent being would allow his beloved humans suffer from random natural disasters either…Imagine yourself in a world without natural suffering, if you looked around yourself and saw that lack of suffering, would you conclude to yourself “This lack of suffering is evidence against the existence of God! If God loved us, he would cause us to suffer in this life.”… “It is thanks to God that we live without natural suffering. Clearly God is benevolent.”…Its one thing to argue that a book has spiritual truth, and another to argue that it has historical truth… I don’t take the historical claims of young earth creationists seriously at all because they don’t stand up to even the most basic investigation…and I see no reason to engage in the mental gymnastics that would be required to salvage the possibility of an “exodus.”
Your if/then thinking is what is getting you in trouble. God is. He has nothing at all to prove to anyone. You continue to expect Him to prove Himself to you. Did it ever occur to you that those Egyptians that lived with the Jews in their midst may have been converted to Judaism way back then much the same way those who live and work with us Christians these days were? By knowing the Jews they became familiar with God. If they didn’t have the Israelites in their midst they wouldn’t have come to know God and make the choice everyone has to make, either for Him or against Him, the very same choice you face these days. Even if born in the Church and raised in the Church and taught everything one is to know to be a good Catholic, at some point in time, each person is asked to go deeper into a relationship with God. We are all called to be Saints and some respond to that call and try to convert on a deeper level. Some even get there in this life. So, the Jews were about this very same business as we are today of evangelization in Egypt. By sending the Jews to Egypt God was demonstrating His merciful love in that the Egyptians who had their own religion made up of their whimsies and fantasies, could now come to know the One true God of the Israelites and ultimately be saved when Jesus Redeemed the souls of the dead when He went down to Sheol that very first Easter. It was the land of the dead where all Israel awaited His ascending to the nether world. Any soul who had passed on and could enter Heaven had to wait.

The idea of a god who is as you say, made to order with your characteristics of benevolence and omnipotent who only makes people so as to kill them, is silly. I suppose I could extend that to say in you limiting way you create a god who for his or her amusement creates people, or being conceited makes people so as to have someone to worship him or because he has some other need. The god you need to have personified in various ways is still an extension of your own limited thinking. God is Who He is, not who you think He should be. It is incumbent on us to get to know Him. I can see by the things you’ve written that you will have a hard time reconciling your thinking to a God Who became Man and lived a human life from conception to death, eating and drinking and laughing and crying and loving and working just like us. But get past it. Jesus is God in the 2nd person of the Trinity and it is through Him you come to the Father and without Him you can do nothing.

You instance of a imaginary world without suffering brings to mind to things you just don’t get - Jesus died a death that was necessary in great suffering. This is a hard thing for some to get. Death and suffering are part of life. No one gets through life without it. To run from it is folly and causes more suffering. Jesus suffering was Redemptive. By His stripes we are healed. We follow Him. Right now as I type this there are thousands of Christians in Muslim lands who have accepted this in the fullest sense, both by Martyrdoms and persecution that will for years be very real and very hard and very painful. They are burning and pillaging our Churches and confiscating all properties and killing and raping and burning everyone in their path. We are fleeing for the mountains and trying to become citizens in other countries so as to escape all the carnage. This is very real, very hard and a great deal of suffering embraced for Christ by Christians willingly. What can you say about this JapaneseKappa? Is their suffering a sign of a hateful god or a hateful people inflamed with a false religion?

I won’t take up your arguments about the historicity of the Bible or the I.D. creationist vs. evolutionists stuff here. Too much for one thread. Ask those questions separately in other threads if you’d like. I’m sure there is more than one person here who’d engage with you in dialog.

I still say your greatest stumbling block is your need to have God prove Himself to you. I think that is part of your own spiritual makeup and finding the answers you seek internally will take time and an openness to the truth from you. It is part of you own spiritual journey. I can respect that. I have mine. It lead me to Christ and His church. I wish that for you too. God bless you with His peace. Those who seek him find.

Glenda
 
The god you need to have personified in various ways is still an extension of your own limited thinking.
Personally speaking, the idea of God, the personal God, appears to be a movable feast. How I personally perceive Him is entirely dependent on whom I am talking to at any given point. Even within one specific denomination, the idea of God with which I am presented changes from person to person.

He will appear loving and benevolent or murderous and vengeful depending on who am talking to. He created everything as it is now or has allowed it evolve. He creates a hell of torment and torture or simply removes people from His presence. He will allow people to commit the most heinous crimes (because they have free will!) yet He will kill children himself because of the sins of others.

You refer to God being an extension of one’s ‘limited thinking’. Is the way that you perceive Him not limited in some way?
 
Please don’t mix up science with politics. They are really on the opposite ends of humanity.
That would be a hard pill to swallow, since Einstein mixed science with politics when he urged Roosevelt to build the atomic bomb.
 
You refer to God being an extension of one’s ‘limited thinking’. Is the way that you perceive Him not limited in some way?
Yes, it’s always limited in some ways.

But if God exists, wouldn’t that be inevitable depending on the depth of our intelligence, our sincerity, and our experience?

People also may not experience God at all depending on their depth, their intelligence, and their sincerity.
 
To those who question it–which includes millions of intelligent people–it is not clear.
To those who are Atheist, it is clear that a God does not exist.
It do not understand how God’s non-existence can be clear.
 
Your if/then thinking is what is getting you in trouble. God is. He has nothing at all to prove to anyone. You continue to expect Him to prove Himself to you. Did it ever occur to you that those Egyptians that lived with the Jews in their midst may have been converted to Judaism way back then much the same way those who live and work with us Christians these days were? By knowing the Jews they became familiar with God.
But what did the Egyptians learn about the Jewish God? The learned he was not good
You instance of a imaginary world without suffering brings to mind to things you just don’t get - Jesus died a death that was necessary in great suffering. This is a hard thing for some to get. Death and suffering are part of life. No one gets through life without it. To run from it is folly and causes more suffering. Jesus suffering was Redemptive. By His stripes we are healed. We follow Him. Right now as I type this there are thousands of Christians in Muslim lands who have accepted this in the fullest sense, both by Martyrdoms and persecution that will for years be very real and very hard and very painful. They are burning and pillaging our Churches and confiscating all properties and killing and raping and burning everyone in their path. We are fleeing for the mountains and trying to become citizens in other countries so as to escape all the carnage. This is very real, very hard and a great deal of suffering embraced for Christ by Christians willingly. What can you say about this JapaneseKappa? Is their suffering a sign of a hateful god or a hateful people inflamed with a false religion?
I say that most of that is simply evidence that a belief in God is not generally a force for peace in the world. Islam was given plenty of its own martyrs and victims in the crusades. Maybe the positions will reverse themselves again in few hundred more years.

Death and suffering are part of life, but there is no a-proiri reason it must be that way. Its entirely possible that we could solve the death problem on our own.
I still say your greatest stumbling block is your need to have God prove Himself to you. I think that is part of your own spiritual makeup and finding the answers you seek internally will take time and an openness to the truth from you. It is part of you own spiritual journey. I can respect that. I have mine. It lead me to Christ and His church. I wish that for you too. God bless you with His peace. Those who seek him find.
Of course God needs to prove himself. If someone told me to commit a genocide, you had better believe I would say no. I’m not about to “just follow orders” if those orders so blatantly contradict my perception of right and wrong, even if those orders come from God. When God told Abraham to kill Isaac, Abraham should have said no, I certainly would.

Might doesn’t make right, just because God is strong doesn’t mean we have to accept whatever he does.
 
Just an example of something that has some properties of life but which we wouldn’t class as life. The definition can be a little wooly.
Yes, the process by which abiogenesis occurred must be a little wooly from our perspective, if not from God’s. 😉
 
Of course God needs to prove himself. If someone told me to commit a genocide, you had better believe I would say no. I’m not about to “just follow orders” if those orders so blatantly contradict my perception of right and wrong, even if those orders come from God. When God told Abraham to kill Isaac, Abraham should have said no, I certainly would.

Might doesn’t make right, just because God is strong doesn’t mean we have to accept whatever he does.
You’ve got an interestingt take on the story of Abraham and Isaac. The story does not prove that God is a monster. The main point of the story proves that Abraham’s trust in God was absolute. It was for this reason that God tested Abraham, and clearly did not intend that Abraham should sacrifice his own son. Because Abraham trusted absolutely, Abraham was rewarded by the fact that the seed of his tribe would produce the Messiah, God’s own Son in the person of Jesus Christ, who would willingly sacrifice himself for our redemption and salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top