Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

Of course, because if you actually read the story as “submission to God’s will comes before personal conscience and reason” then you’d probably be some flavor of Muslim.

Regardless, I’m pretty sure Catholicism teaches that the ends don’t justify the means. Just because God had a plan doesn’t mean that it was right to command a father to kill his son. If nothing else, it is deceptive.

 

[josh987654321]

That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

Hi Phil

May I ask, which of the two do you believe is more reasonable? and why?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

May I ask, what are you looking for PMVCatholic?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[miguel]

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.

I mentioned a simple engineering system in one of my earlier posts…the thermostat. Do you think the thermostat made itself? Obviously not. I assume you agree. Why not? Because the parts aren’t alive. Living creatures are composed of various atoms…mostly carbon and hydrogen…even the simplest forms. And not even the smartest humans fully understand these simplest forms of life. If they did, they could construct these atoms into those life forms. This is not happening today. Even if it was possible, humans are only playing catch-up. Do you think those atoms formed themselves into even the simplest living creatures? The answer is obviously no. Atoms aren’t alive. Yet those life forms exist. This is not a falsifiable claim. Good luck trying though. God Bless.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I mentioned a simple engineering system in one of my earlier posts…the thermostat. Do you think the thermostat made itself? Obviously not. I assume you agree. Why not? Because the parts aren’t alive. Living creatures are composed of various atoms…mostly carbon and hydrogen…even the simplest forms. And not even the smartest humans fully understand these simplest forms of life. If they did, they could construct these atoms into those life forms. This is not happening today. Even if it was possible, humans are only playing catch-up. Do you think those atoms formed themselves into even the simplest living creatures? The answer is obviously no. Atoms aren’t alive. Yet those life forms exist. This is not a falsifiable claim. Good luck trying though. God Bless.

Your post suggest a significant lack of knowledge about how chemistry works, so I will do my best to understand your point. Atoms do spontaneously arrange themselves into molecules, based on complicated interactions and potential energy surfaces.

What you’re saying is that if scientists were able to create artificial life, you’d be wrong? Or is it that if scientists were able to create conditions where life formed spontaneously you’d be wrong.

Either way, it seems we will just have to patiently see how long your God of this particular gap survives.

 

[SecretCatholic]

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. And Theists simply choose to believe otherwise.

The Catholic Church’s teaching on suffering is indeed clear. Whether one believes in it or not is a totally different matter. This is not the kind of teaching that you would probably come to on your own, say by natural law. This is revealed truth. If you accept the Church’s authority, then you accept this teaching.

God’s existence, or at least the existence of a higher power, has been accepted by most civilizations in the world throughout history. Only modern/post-modern times have brought about a large atheist movement, which is interesting, even though nor modern science nor modern philosophy has disproven God’s existence.

There has been everything in every time, however. The Bible mentions atheism. But it wasn’t a largely accepted position. Have we been irrational about this topic for most of our recorded history? Maybe. But the burden of proof is on atheists, not theists, since it is they who are making claims contrary to the accepted view of reality.

 

[abucs]

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.

We have to remember that God is also the author of life and provided Abraham with a son. Much has been written about the Abrahamic story including the thinking by Abraham that God will honour his promise by either protecting Isaac or raising him from death.

I suspect if God spoke to you Kappa, you’d be doing a bit of revision on how you saw the world.

Certainly man induced genocide would be something that Christians would rightly question. The granting of the miracle of Isaac to Abraham and the test placed upon him by the God of this world and the next is a different matter.

 

[miguel]

…Atoms do spontaneously arrange themselves into molecules, based on complicated interactions and potential energy surfaces.

They don’t spontaneously arrange themselves into reproducing life forms.

 

[Amandil]

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.

Abraham’s faith wasn’t the only faith being tested, since Isaac at this time was a full grown man and not a “child” as many assume from the story.

The point of the story was not only Abraham’s faith in submitting his son to be sacrificed(as God the Father later would), but also Isaac freely submitting to be sacrificed(as Jesus did).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course, because if you actually read the story as “submission to God’s will comes before personal conscience and reason” then you’d probably be some flavor of Muslim.

Regardless, I’m pretty sure Catholicism teaches that the ends don’t justify the means. Just because God had a plan doesn’t mean that it was right to command a father to kill his son. If nothing else, it is deceptive.

If having a plan doesn’t justify God taking a life then it must mean that it also isn’t right for God to deprive all human beings of life at their death. Have you noticed that every man is mortal? Are you trying to argue that God has no right to take life away? If he has that right, would he also not have a right to determine how? By disease, natural event, accident, or, even, by command? Why not?

 

[josh987654321]

May I ask, what are you looking for PMVCatholic?

Could you please elaborate on this? This is precisely what I’m looking for.

-Phil

Please disregard my previous question.

In my humble opinion, I believe it is far more rational to believe in God with what I have learned. I hope you don’t mind if I share with you some reasons why.

I believe without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless, so the question I ask the atheist, is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

I believe to follow the concept of a purely material universe to it’s logical conclusion, pulls the rug out from under the New Atheists. As John Lennox say’s, If as they claim, there is nothing in the universe except matter and energy, some of which blindly and randomly evolved into the human mind, then how can we rely on our minds in the first place to arrive at this conclusion? Our minds are themselves, according to this Darwinian view, mere random purposeless movements of atoms, unable to recognise truth, or beauty, or goodness, to know anything, or to do science for that matter.

And yet other scientists of undisputed intellectual stature with diametrically opposed views concur that, ‘The reason why what is in my little mind can understand a bit of what is out there is because both of them are traceable back to the same grand designer.’

C.S. Lewis I believe also explains it very well.

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words true or false.” - C.S. Lewis

And I believe John Lennox also explains it well.

*"The very fact that we do science, means we believe that the universe is rationally intelligible. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligible? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if that’s the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science.

In fact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together."* - John Lennox

Thus I believe it’s not science and theism that are in conflict as some atheists claim, but rather science and atheism that are in conflict, because I believe atheism cannot trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Thus I believe by denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

I also like this quote from C.S. Lewis -
Extract from C.S. Lewis' book 'Mere Christianity':

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?

A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe, we should never have know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

And this one by John Lennox regarding the ‘God of the Gaps’ idea, as if God is an explanation for what we can’t explain yet -
Extract from John Lennox's book 'God's Undertaker':

In some quarters the very success of science has also lead to the idea that, because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe without bringing in God, we can safety conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place.

However, such reasoning involves a logical fallacy, which we can illustrate as follows.

Take a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone from a remote part of the world, who was seeing one for the first time and who knew nothing about modern engineering, might imagine that there is a god (Mr Ford) inside the engine, making it go. He might further imagine that when the engine ran sweetly it was because Mr Ford liked him, and when it refused to go it was because Mr Ford disliked him. Of Course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take the engine to pieces, he would discover that there is no Mr Ford inside it. neither would it take much intelligence for him to see that he did not need to introduce Mr Ford as an explanation for it’s working.

His Grasp of the impersonal principals of internal combustion would be altogether enough to explain how the engine works. So far, so good.

But if he then decided that his understanding of the principals of how the engine works made it impossible to believe in the existence of Mr Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false - in philosophical terminology he would be committing a category mistake. Had there never been a Mr Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand.

It is likewise a category mistake to suppose that our understanding of the impersonal principals according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal creator who designed, made, and upholds the universe. In other words, we should not confuse the mechanisms of the universe with either it’s cause or it’s upholder.

The basic issue here is that those of a scientific turn of mind like Atkins and Dawkins fail to distinguish between mechanism and agency.

When Sir Isaac Newton discovered the universal law of gravitation he did not say, “I have discovered a mechanism that accounts for planetary motion, therefore there is no agent God who designed it.” Quite the opposite, precisely because he understood how it worked, he was moved to increased admiration for the God who had designed it that way.

“Be careful not to confuse scientific statements, with statements by scientists.” - John Lennox

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

I would also like to encourage you to read the book 'Unseen - New Evidence by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han which is linked in my signature, I believe it will help you greatly.
Unseen – New Evidence by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han:

Unseen by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han - loveandmercy.org/english-books/

In Buenos Aires in 1999, Pope Francis, then known as Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio, sought a scientific investigation into something very unusual. A Communion Host appeared to have inexplicably changed to what looked like flesh and blood. First published in “Reason to Believe” in 2007, and then presented to Pope Benedict XVI and geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project in 2009, the startling scientific evidence inspired Ron Tesoriero, an Australian lawyer and documentary film producer, and co-author Lee Han, to follow where the evidence led. And where it led is remarkable. This new book, “UNSEEN – New Evidence” presents not only a convincing basis for the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist but is the most serious scientific challenge yet to contemporary thinking on the origin of life in the universe.

**Eucharistic Miracles of Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 **

Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 1) - (PDF: 1.46M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 2) - (PDF: 1.42M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 3) - (PDF: 1.25M)

**Eucharistic Miracle of Poland, Sokólka, October 12, 2008 **

Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 1) – (PDF: 1.41M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 2) – (PDF: 1.31M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 3) – (PDF: 1.41M)
Extract from the book linked in my signature 'Unseen - New Evidence by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han':

Science has always claimed to champion impartial scrutiny of objective evidence. When research uncovers new evidence, and most especially physical observable evidence, it is assessed on it’s merits. Darwin concluded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Into this heated debate comes the astonishing phenomena of the sudden existence of human heart tissue in Italy (Lanciano), Poland (Sokólka) and Argentina (Buenos Aires). They explicitly demonstrate that evolutionary biologists insisting on how the heart had to have come into existence are wrong. Not only were individual cells fully and instantaneously present as the tissue of a recognizable complex organ, a four chambered heart. Not only was that organ instantaneously ‘evolved’ but so too was the particular species to which it belongs, the most complex of all species, the human being. The cells clearly did not evolve in an ever increasing step-by-step process of gradual accumulated complexity. Neither did the heart. Neither did the human. This is an unequivocal demonstration that a complex organ exists, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications over billions of years. In the face of visible, not circumstantial, evidence and by his own admission, Darwin’s theory has absolutely broken down.

Extract from the book linked in my signature 'Unseen - New Evidence by Ron Tesoriero and Lee Han':

No one can call the Hosts-to-Heart cases spiritual. They are 100% physical. But the fact that these transformations have all occurred in a Christian context cannot be avoided. And neither can the fact that they confirm the original and enduring doctrine of the ‘real presence’ of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world” John 6:51

If these words of Christ are true, these outrageously audacious, almost unthinkable words are true, these words uttered many thousands of times for thousands of years, every single day in every corner of the planet are true, that bread does become real flesh, then it certainly seems the height of folly to not soberly consider everything else this man had to say.

Search and you will find - Matthew 7:7

I hope this has helped, they go into much more detail in the book.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Bradski]

Thus I believe it’s not science and theism that are in conflict as some atheists claim, but rather science and atheism that are in conflict, because I believe atheism cannot trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science…

I think that you’ll find that scientific facts don’t really have much of an opinion whether they are understood by atheists, Christians, pagans, deists, Muslims or anyone else.

I trust my cognitive faculties to understand how science works just as you do yours. To say that I can’t really makes no sense. Science doesn’t change depending on the attitude or beliefs of the person using it.

Could you explain to me exactly might what change in regard to what you perceive as a conflict between myself and science if I change my mind about God and become a Christian?

 

[glendab]

Hello Bradski.

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?

God is a changeless reality. He is not what you say He is unless you are saying something about Him that has been revealed by Him and affirmed by the Church. He cannot be whatever some say He is and your projections of Him should be measured by what the Church teaches about Him. The whole point of evangelization is to help others come to Christ and if you cannot even explain Who He Is accurately you won’t be helping Him or them or yourself for that matter. If you change your image of God depending upon who you are in conversation with, then you are not, IMO, giving a clear picture of Him and in some ways are simply taking the easier, softer way. He who denies Him before others will be denied by Him. He said that, so man up.

I have spoken with enough people over the years to understand that sometimes they invent their own higher powers and attribute to their little deities attributes they think they need in a god. For some this is done subconsciously, for others it is intentional. This is a purely human invention and has grown in acceptance in various ways these days. If you look over history you will find various examples of man-made religions. It really is nothing new, just newly tried by those who do so and they get what they make for themselves: idols to worship. We Catholics have the One true God and there are attributes to Him that have been revealed to us and these too get interpreted by others to mean differing things. It was my opinion that that is precisely one of the troubles with a certain poster here: the making of one’s own idol and measuring our God by their own yardstick or if you will, judging God and finding Him lacking based upon their personal demands of what a god should behave like.

This is only my observation and opinion and you can take it or leave it. As I’ve said before I’m no expert on anything except cinnamon toast with lots of raisins and Starbucks cuz I’m special!

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

But what did the Egyptians learn about the Jewish God? The learned he was not good

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.
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.

Okay. I get it. Our God doesn’t measure up to your thinking. You need a better god. Go for it. But try to stay within the bounds of respect here at CAF. We don’t like Pope bashing either.

I’ve also got to say I’m impressed with your knowledge of Scriptures. It tells me you know Who it is you are rejecting. Can I ask what is your religion?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

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.

Since you used hypotheticals before in this thread, I will too. Place yourself in Iraq and you are 17 years old and they’ve come to your village “recruiting.” You are handed a gun, bullets and some rudimentary training and a bit more religious instruction regarding the need for jihad. You are taken to the next village with others like yourself in a truck and told to kill everyone. If you try to not shoot you will be killed with the rest of those villagers. Do you surrender your life to not do so JapaneseKappa? Be honest. Those conducting the jihad believe their orders DO come directly from God through their Prophets. Rwanda is another example. Do you think your moral platitudes would’ve stopped anyone from doing what they did?

Glenda

 

[josh987654321]

Hi Bradski

I think that you’ll find that scientific facts don’t really have much of an opinion whether they are understood by atheists, Christians, pagans, deists, Muslims or anyone else.

I agree.

I trust my cognitive faculties to understand how science works just as you do yours.

True, but may I ask, what reason do you have to trust your cognitive faculties given an atheistic worldview? keeping in mind that whatever your view for the creation of the universe, that your mind is also a product of that same universe.

Is there a ‘you’? can I say ‘me’ if all I am considered to be is a random or Darwinian, chance assembly of atoms? and then what of my thoughts? if mine and your thoughts are merely a movement of atoms in our brains, what sense does it make to call anything true or false? if our physical make up is all there is to us, than everything about me is simply due to my chemical make up, as Richard Dawkins would say, we are simply DNA and just dance to it’s music. Thus why I would ask why someone like Richard Dawkins would believe his own convictions to be true, considering that his convictions are that his own convictions are just his DNA dancing to it’s own music.

To me, it just doesn’t make any sense, too much philosophising and not enough reality in my humble opinion. Thus why I believe to follow the thinking of atheists like Richard Dawkins to it’s logical conclusion, would mean eliminating ‘true’ or ‘false’ altogether, and thus how can he appeal to these things? To follow his thinking, I believe he would have to bring out another book called “The Truth Delusion” but that would debunk his book “The God Delusion”

I believe it is the same with right, wrong, good or evil, I believe they also become meaningless by following Atheists like Dawkins philosophies to their logical conclusion, as in a lot of their books, they often point out a whole heap of evil things that men and women have done in the name of religion, which I would say as St. Augustine said, that we should never judge a philosophy by it’s abuse, but then they latter deny right or wrong, good or evil itself, by saying that we are simply DNA and dance to it’s music, thus calling good, evil, right or wrong a matter of preference such as blue or green.

Anyway, just spewing a few of my thoughts, I don’t mean to offend anybody.

To say that I can’t really makes no sense. Science doesn’t change depending on the attitude or beliefs of the person using it.

I agree.

Could you explain to me exactly might what change in regard to what you perceive as a conflict between myself and science if I change my mind about God and become a Christian?

I believe it would give you a reason to believe in reason itself. I believe it would make sense of the words true, false, right, wrong, good or evil. I trust my cognitive faculties because I believe they were intelligently designed, for the same reason I believe we can reason. For the same reason I believe we can make sense of right, wrong, good or evil, true or false and most importantly do science.

C.S. Lewis once said that the biggest stumbling block to people admitting an objective moral law, is that they also have to admit that they have failed to keep it. And I would say to those people, that as the light uncovers our sins, love and mercy is also there ready to cover them.

Anyway, just spewing some thoughts, again I don’t mean to offend anybody, I hope this has helped, please feel free to reply/refute anything I have said.

God Bless you

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[glendab]

Hello Amandil.

Abraham’s faith wasn’t the only faith being tested, since Isaac at this time was a full grown man and not a “child” as many assume from the story.

The point of the story was not only Abraham’s faith in submitting his son to be sacrificed(as God the Father later would), but also Isaac freely submitting to be sacrificed(as Jesus did).

In an aside, I think that most who are parents shudder at the enormity of the test of Abraham’s faith this was. I am a parent and I cannot fathom anything such as this but I think the emotions are similar to the parents of children who need life saving surgery and what they go through speaking to the doctors and handing their poor babies over to them the day of surgery. Yeah ---- huge Cross for anyone.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Josh.

Please disregard my previous question.

In my humble opinion, I believe it is far more rational to believe in God with what I have learned. I hope you don’t mind if I share with you some reasons why.

I believe without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless, so the question I ask the atheist, is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

I believe to follow the concept of a purely material universe to it’s logical conclusion, pulls the rug out from under the New Atheists. As John Lennox say’s, If as they claim, there is nothing in the universe except matter and energy, some of which blindly and randomly evolved into the human mind, then how can we rely on our minds in the first place to arrive at this conclusion? Our minds are themselves, according to this Darwinian view, mere random purposeless movements of atoms, unable to recognise truth, or beauty, or goodness, to know anything, or to do science for that matter.

And yet other scientists of undisputed intellectual stature with diametrically opposed views concur that, ‘The reason why what is in my little mind can understand a bit of what is out there is because both of them are traceable back to the same grand designer.’

C.S. Lewis I believe also explains it very well.

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words true or false.” - C.S. Lewis

And I believe John Lennox also explains it well.

*"The very fact that we do science, means we believe that the universe is rationally intelligible. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligible? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if that’s the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science.

In fact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together."* - John Lennox

Thus I believe it’s not science and theism that are in conflict as some atheists claim, but rather science and atheism that are in conflict, because I believe atheism cannot trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Thus I believe by denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

I also like this quote from C.S. Lewis -

Please continue to next post -

Wonderful post. Thank you.

It has been my observation that those adherents of a science that requires all that randomness to succeed in creating a universe or multiverses, live in ivory towers that are quite ordered. They tend to be found in labs, exceedingly ordered, or Universities, very structured and ordered and the most randomness they experience is the change in weather. In fact, if you stepped into their lab and created some disorder randomly, say by simply attempting to re-arrange their furniture, you’d be escorted off their property by security very quickly. I don’t think it would help you at all either to claim you are simply creating some chaos that will bring about higher life forms for them.

Glenda