Questioning Faith

[GiantRobots]

I’m starting to question the existence of god and the actions of Jesus. What logical facts are there to support the existence of god, the truth in the bible, and the existence of Jesus’ actions. Thank you for your time

 

[josh987654321]

Hi GiantRobots

I’m starting to question the existence of god and the actions of Jesus.

May I ask what some of the questions are?

What logical facts are there to support the existence of god,

Lots.

May I ask, have you done much spiritual reading? e.g. The Gospels, the Saints etc?

In any case, I hope you don’t mind if I share with you some apologetics on the existance of God that I have enjoyed.

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.

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

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

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

I believe It’s the same with God, instead of trying to look at the sun, turn around and have a look at all that the sun illuminates for you. I believe many people are like that when it comes to God, they try to stare into the sun and say *“I can’t see anything”, *instead of looking around at what the sun illuminates for them. (Thus the importance of spiritual reading such as the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Saints etc).

I would also like to ecnourage you to read the two books linked in my signature if you can, as I believe they will help you greatly regarding your doubts.
Reason to Believe:

Reason to Believe by Ron Tesoriero - loveandmercy.org/english-books/

A statue weeps and bleeds in the same city that Catalina Rivas writes profound teachings she says are dictated by Christ. Elsewhere, a communion host (bread) changes to living flesh. Are these claims true? What does Science have to say? This is a fascinating journey of Australian lawyer, Ron Tesoriero, in pursuit of answers. On the way he invites a well-known and highly respected journalist Mike Willesee to join him. What they discover will confront the mind and heart of every reader.

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.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

the truth in the bible, and the existence of Jesus’ actions. Thank you for your time

I hope you don’t mind, but I have quoted an extract out of Timothy Keller’s book “Reason for belief” on the Historical Accuracy of the Gospels that I believe may help you -

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

I would also like to make specific mention of the Eucharistic miracle of Sokólka, Poland October 12, 2008.

Poland -

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)

And for more - Eucharistic Miracles of the World
Extract from the book '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

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.

Matthew 7:7
Search, and you will find.

The Sacred Heart Image (St Margaret-Mary Alacoque) -

http://s7.postimg.org/4jx43bm1n/Christ_7.jpg

This is the revelation which took place in June 1675 when St Margaret Mary was adoring the Blessed Sacrament (The Holy Eucharist). Our Lord said to her:

**"Behold this Heart, Which has loved men so much, that It has spared nothing, even to exhausting **(Crucifixion) **and consuming Itself, **(Last Supper, Eucharist) **in order to testify to them Its love; and in return I receive from the greater number nothing but ingratitude by reason of their irreverence and sacrileges, and by the coldness and contempt which they show Me in this Sacrament of Love. **(Referring to how people treat His real presence in the Holy Eucharist). But what I feel the most keenly is that it is hearts which are consecrated to Me that treat Me thus. Therefore, I ask of thee that the Friday after the Octave of Corpus Christi be set apart for a special feast to honour My Heart, by communicating on that day and making reparation to It by a solemn act, in order to make amends for the indignities which It has received during the time It has been exposed on the altars. I promise thee that My Heart shall expand Itself to shed in abundance the influence of Its divine love upon those who shall thus honour It, and cause It to be honoured."

What I also find interesting, is this revelation occurred in 1675 before any Eucharistic Miracle could be scientifically studied as thoroughly as the one above has, and in the Eucharistic Miracle above, we find that it is not just any human tissue, but more specific heart muscle tissue (Cardiac muscle tissue).
Jesus to Catalina:

In Adoration - loveandmercy.org/Eng-IA-Reg.pdf

**17) “It is not the Tabernacles that are closed, but your hearts. For very few succeed in understanding how I, who am hidden and enclosed, have the freedom to reveal Myself, to make My living presence felt, there in the Host which every one of those Tabernacles encloses.

1. “My Presence can be noticed if you have open minds, hearts and souls. Whoever comes to Me receives the proofs of My Eucharistic Presence, since I cause that marvelous miracle, precisely in order to approach you, welcome you, and console you who suffer from the life that is passing.”**

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Angela77]

I’m starting to question the existence of god and the actions of Jesus. What logical facts are there to support the existence of god, the truth in the bible, and the existence of Jesus’ actions. Thank you for your time

Check out The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel! It walks through the reasons why the Bible is reliable (I learned a TON) and why Christ must have done what the Bible says He did. It’s also a pretty easy read–the language is not rigorous, but it has a lot of great info!

 

[jochoa]

I’m starting to question the existence of god and the actions of Jesus. What logical facts are there to support the existence of god, the truth in the bible, and the existence of Jesus’ actions. Thank you for your time

If you want to physically experience the existence of Jesus’ actions, who is the God of the Bible & the Universe, look deeper into the Mass. Here are some ways the Mass is coming to life for me:

The Mass as Holy Week (The Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus)
Setting:
The Sanctuary (Tabernacle, Altar, and Ambo) is Jerusalem.
The Host of the event is Jesus, and he appears as bread & wine, the crucifix, the priest, and servers of the Mass.

The Actions of Jesus:
In the procession of the Mass, Jesus (priest) processes into Jerusalem (Sanctuary) on Palm Sunday.
During the readings and homily, Jesus (lectors) preaches in Jerusalem.
Just before the offering is brought forth, Jesus (Crucifix) hides to prepare for Crucifixion in the Garden of Gethsemane (entrance).
When the offering is brought forth, the Roman Soldiers (gift-bearers) bring Jesus (bread & wine) to High-Priest & Pontius Pilate (priest).
When the wine is handed to the deacon, Pontius (priest) has the soldiers (deacon) shed Jesus’ blood (wine) in the scourging (into the Chalice).
When the priest washes his hands, Pontius (priest) washes his hands.
When the priest breaks the bread, Jesus is crucified and dies.
When the priest consumes the bread and wine, Jesus is resurrected.

The Mass as the Last Supper in the Upper Room

AND the Mass as the Marriage Supper of the Lamb or the Revelation of Jesus Christ
For more details on the Mass as Saint John’s Vision in the Book of Revelations, I recommend listening to “The Lamb’s Supper” by Dr. Scott Hahn → youtube.com/watch?v=E6kghYDZ2aQ&hd=1

Thanks for sharing your questions.

 

[Starrsmother]

Hi GiantRobots

May I ask what some of the questions are?

Lots.

May I ask, have you done much spiritual reading? e.g. The Gospels, the Saints etc?

In any case, I hope you don’t mind if I share with you some apologetics on the existance of God that I have enjoyed.

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 -

Fabulous job of apologetics Josh! Would you be offended if I copied it so I could post it to a friend of mine who is somewhere between atheist and agnostic?

 

[josh987654321]

Fabulous job of apologetics Josh!

Thank you

Would you be offended if I copied it so I could post it to a friend of mine who is somewhere between atheist and agnostic?

Not at all, I would be more than happy for you to copy it. Thank you

God Bless

Josh