I'm currently studying Philosophy at University and I've just completed a course covering the major historical ideas of Religion. Unfortunately, we didn't cover some of the contemporary issues but the I'll get around to that eventually. To clarify we looked at the arguments both for and against the existence of God and also whether it is rational to believe in such a being.

NB: I will be referring to God as He throughout this passage. I'm referring to what is effectively the Judeo-Christian God and this just simplifies matters.

Again before I being it will serve to outline exactly what I mean by the concept of God.

God in this context is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (I'm not sure that's a word but it certainly should be if it isn't) and self-existant.

I may as well give a definition of all terms to make things further clear.

Omnipotent - All powerful provided an action doesn't refute the very nature of His own existence.

Omniscient - All knowing with the same clause as above.

Omnibenevolent - All good. I will include that same clause as above but I can't think of any example that could actually refute his own existence in this context.

Self-existant - God is and can be the cause for His own existence. There needs be no further regression of justification for his existence.

This is a rather lengthy introduction but it's necessary to get my point across. Whether a God with the above criteria exists is a very difficult truth to establish. I'll list the major arguments and the proponents and critics in case anyone might like to research the ideas a little further.

The Teleological Argument - in particular William Paley's 'Watch Analogy'. This takes modern form in the 'Fine Tuning Argument'. It asks whether it is more reasonable to believe that such a complex universe came about by pure chance or was created be a designer. Hume had some criticisms against the argument. Notice that it is not hard to suppose that this designer be a God with the above qualities if you can assert this position. This argument is not deductively valid. It is not absolute. We are only asking which approach is more reasonable, not whether one or the other is impossible.

The Cosmological Argument - Samuel Clarke is one of the most recognised supporters of this argument. This follows from Anselm's three criteria for the existence of an object. An object is either caused by something else, caused by nothing or caused by itself. Some would argue that nothing can have no cause, though this point has mostly failed under criticism from Hume and others. However, there the argument suggests that it is more reasonable to suppose that the universe has a cause in a self-existing creator than being a brute fact or being an infinite series of dependent causes. Again, it is not difficult to assign the above God to this creator if this point can be established. Hume was the major critic of this argument.

Check out http://www.qsmithwmu.com/ if you want to see some excellent contemporary considerations of this argument.

The Ontological Argument - This was originally proposed by Anselm. It suggests that the very nature of God proves that He exists. The argument goes like this. God is a maximally great being. A being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist. We can conceive of such a being. Therefore, if God is a maximally great being, he must exist. The argument is a little longer and more complicated than that. It has also taken on revisions to fix some criterial problems. Alvin Plantinga set forth such a position which has come under scrutiny as well. Again, we can see that if this point is established the above criteria for our God is easily connected. Our concept of a God is looking fairly reasonable. The major critics of this argument were Kant and later Norman Malcolm.

The Problem of Evil - This is an argument against God's existence. There are actually two. One says that God is inconstant with evil and can't exist. This argument effectively fails. The other is the evidential argument. This argues that no omnibenevolent being would allow unnecessary suffering and yet such excess seems to exist. Questions of virtue and necessary evil for the greater good are usually raised in defence but the argument is still a contentious issue. Rowe has presented - in my opinion - the most cogent versions of this argument and major critics have been Liebniz and McCloskey.

Next we come to questions of whether belief in God is reasonable. Is it rational to accept God's existence?

Miracles - Hume questions whether it is ever rational to accept miracles as being good evidence of God's existence, or in fact, of any religous proposition. He didn't suggest that miracles haven't or don't happen, but that we are never reasonable in believing that they have happened. The argument goes like this. A miracle is a maximally improbable thing. It is physically impossible but logically possible. However, your senses or a person offering evidence that a miracle has existed are not nearly so improbable. Thus, we are never reasonable in believing that a miracle has occurred as opposed to us being decieved or mistaken. Critics have suggested that there are problems with Hume's definition of a miracle and also whether miracles can't occur in other ways. Personally, I don't find these criticisms to be particularly effective if an altered version of Hume's argument is used. However, I am only attempted to outline the argument here and don't wish to go any further into this point. Major critics have been Swinburne and George Mavrodes. Nevertheless, we see that the point of justitication for belief in God is contentious, but has not been ruled out. It is still - dependent upon opinion - a rational process.

Faith - The last question I come to is whether we should believe in God for purely pragmatic reasons. Are we better to believe in God than not? Even if that benefit only lasts for our current lives? Clifford argued that this was not the case. He proposed that we did not have sufficient evidence to believe that God does or does not exist and thus any decision in either way would be based upon 'faith' or 'passion'. He suggested that this was inherently wrong and thus the only reasonable stance to take was agnosticism. He argued from utilitarian ideas. William James argued that if we come to an intellectual stalemate (and several other criteria that I'm not going to bother to list) then it is now reasonable to take that leap of faith and make a choice based not on reason. James has been criticised for not properly addressing Clifford which I agree with. However, I also feel that James has not been properly addressed. George J.L Mackie and Mavrodes have been contemporary proponents of Clifford and James respectively. Another interesting point is Pascal's Wager which I won't go into here, but I suggest you all research it on wikipedia. My point is that faith having a rational basis has not been disproven. There are still good, rational grounds for belief in God and following from the above arguments, the God I defined earlier.

I realise that is a ridiculously long introduction and I do apologise. I will not be surprised if no one gets this far and this topic crashes and burns. However, I am finally at my point.

All of these arguments bring us to one point. It is reasonable to believe in a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It is also reasonable to be athiestic and agnostic. This all depends on your opinion of the above arguments. There are few absolutes in the philosophy of religion. However, you may all have noticed what hasn't been shown here. Before I begin I would like to say that I realise there are writings in this area that I haven't encountered yet. I would just like to see the opinions of some religous peoples on this contentious issue. I believe the following question is the serious problem that religous faces.

Once asserting, perhaps, that the above God exists how do we prove that that God is the God of Christianity? The God of Islam? The God of Judea?(sp?) We haven't even considered a variety of other religions and deities yet. How do you justify the Bible's teachings? The Koran's teachings? The Old Testament's teachings?

None of these arguments suggest the existence of any God in particular and even less so in the supposed word of such a God. How are we reasonable in accepting the 'word of God'?

This is the question that I feel is difficult to answer.

I hope to receive some enlightenment.

:D

I'm not a religious person at all, but I am a spiritual person. To quote Victor Hugo, "Religions pass away, but God remains."

That's why I don't follow any organized religion. Not to be offensive to religious people, but I think that all religions become tainted with time and dogma. There is no way to tell anymore which religion is "right" (that is unless some incarnated deity were to come down to Earth, prove its devinity through some act of impossiblity, and state which religion is the "true" one... that would make me religious). I've read the Bible and the Koran, but nothing within them convinces me which one is "correct" if either of them really is.

I guess I haven't really offered any answers, only stated that these same questions are why I'm not a religious person. Sorry for the lack of enlightenment that I offered. :lol: Just thought I'd give my opinion on the matter.

Thankyou, Sadhana! Those opinions are exactly what I'm hoping for. These eternal questions of identity and meaning are not easily answerable and particularly in relation to God they almost always lack an answer of absolute certainty or even remote certainty.

The question here is rather simple to any religous people here. Did the Bible, Koran etc convince you that a certain religion was true? Or did something else convince you and you have turned to the Bible as the legitimate word of God thereafter?

I would particularly like to know what exactly was so persuasive about any religous text you may have read.

Nice topic. If I forget and you remember, remind me to talk to you about Australian universities and what fields there are available with what exactly you're doing.

That was a great introduction. I'm nowhere near as familiar with the material as you are, but it seemed you sketched things rather well. I have two specific things to comment on. Firstly, on the irrationality of believing in miracles: which altered version of Hume's criticism do you propose? Secondly, you could've probably added something that goes beyond the rationality of belief in God. That is, a bit on the discussion that has been going on about whether or not we can know God exists. Alvin Plantinga has written a bit about this. Despite shamelessly promoting him and his writings now and at other times in other places, I haven't read any thing of his apart from a few free essays online, so I really can't sketch things very well myself. However, I think he has a relevant thing or two to say about the rationality of holding either position.

I would say based on experience and inquiry.

*looks around at reactions*

Haha, yeah, I'm a Christian and I didn't say based on the Bible! :D But before my Christian siblings think me a heretic, let me just say that the Bible can be part of both those things.

So yeah, that disclaimer out of the way, now to a possible problem. I say experience and inquiry because, truly, whether or not what what we believe is rational may depend on us. To use an extreme because they work: it was rational for many people a few millennia ago to think that the earth was flat because they had no good reason to think it was anything else. As far as they knew and as best as they could reason, the most rational shape of the earth was flat on the surface with a variety of possible things beneath. Today, it would be irrational for anybody exposed to a modern education system to think this. This is, like the belief of the ancients, based on the best we know and the best we can reason.

Now in showing that example I want to point out, as I think Raist all but stated, that the rationality of a belief is not necessarily related to the truth of that belief. These days we rationally and truly believe that the earth isn't flat. Back then, they rationally and falsely believed that the earth was flat. These days and back then, someone can irrationally but truly believe that the earth isn't flat, as well as (but probably not as likely as) he could irrationally and falsely believe that the earth is flat.

It's the same with belief in God. Let's say that God doesn't exist. It could be that atheists today rationally withhold belief in God (or actively disbelieve in him). It could also be that they do so irrationally, but still happen to be right. (Maybe all their arguments against God's existence actually fail, but there are other, unknown ones, that work.) Or, saying that God does exist, it could be that many theists today rationally believe that God exists and happen to be right. It could also be that many of us irrationally believe in Him and happen to be right.

It is from this basis that I broadly say that we can be reasonable in accepting the Bible, the Qur'an or any other text as the Word of God. However, as I tried to make clear, I say this with a reservation: reasonable-ness isn't necessarily connected with truth.

Yet, saying this, I believe that experience and inquiry can both provide us with rational reason to believe or disbelieve in a specific God and with correct reason (in my view) to believe that there is a God and he's the God of the Apostles. Showing this, however, is far more difficult than showing what I just showed. I think it can probably be done, but I know I don't know how to do it...so I won't try. Rather, I'll just sketch what I have in mind.

I think that Christianity is true, at least in its essentials and many of the peripheries. The core of these essentials include the Incarnation of Jesus, his death, burial and resurrection, and that he commissioned apostles and sent them out by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that through them he established the Church that endures in some form to today by the power of that same Holy Spirit. I also think that many of these essentials can be experienced and investigated to determine whether or not they are true. Much of it involves historical inquiry, which would include the Bible and other ancient texts. However, as a Pentecostal/Charismatic, I happen to think that a good bit of it can also involve experiencing some contemporary versions of those maximally improbable events (to use Hume's possibly flawed definition).

So I think that, if Christianity can be shown true, it would probably be done in the person of Jesus and the works (both fruit and gifts) of the Holy Spirit. Showing that the Father is real would in all likelihood only get us to the God of Judea, not the God of the Christians.

Ah, my old friend Seeker. How I thank you for replying so promptly and with such insight forcing me to continue to procrastinate from Linguistics study. :P

Well, here we go.

Seeker

Firstly, on the irrationality of believing in miracles: which altered version of Hume's criticism do you propose?

This involves the most complicated part of the argument and the section of Hume's critique that was most successfully and ardently criticised. I'll attempt to outline the argument a little later in reference to something else but I have to warn you I am not very adept in explaining this as previous experience in philosophy tutorials has shown me.

That is, a bit on the discussion that has been going on about whether or not we can know God exists. Alvin Plantinga has written a bit about this.

Yes, I knew I had missed this out. It's because I honestly haven't had much time nor success in finding the materials. I'm not surprised that Plantinga is involved with it, however. I'll see what I can find once my exams are over and get back to you about this, Seeker.

Now in showing that example I want to point out, as I think Raist all but stated, that the rationality of a belief is not necessarily related to the truth of that belief.

Certainly true. I'm glad you picked that up and put it in the open more clearly. Rational belief does not imply truth. There are certain situations that adequate evidence may not exist in which we can be even remotely certain of the truth of matters. Absolute certainty is even worse. It only seems to exist in a couple of cases. That is the difference between belief and knowledge. Knowledge requires truth, justification and belief. Belief itself really only requires you to believe in it, though I would argue that no belief not rationally justified is worth having. Thankyou for pointing this out Seeker.

You'll have to forgive me but I plan on skipping much of the rest of what you're written. This is simply because I agree with it. I feel I would have nothing constructive to say on what you have written but I will make a comment on your thoughts when I turn to some of your later comments.

I think that Christianity is true, at least in its essentials and many of the peripheries. The core of these essentials include the Incarnation of Jesus, his death, burial and resurrection, and that he commissioned apostles and sent them out by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that through them he established the Church that endures in some form to today by the power of that same Holy Spirit. I also think that many of these essentials can be experienced and investigated to determine whether or not they are true. Much of it involves historical inquiry, which would include the Bible and other ancient texts. However, as a Pentecostal/Charismatic, I happen to think that a good bit of it can also involve experiencing some contemporary versions of those maximally improbable events (to use Hume's possibly flawed definition).

The notion of historical inquiry is an interesting one. I do agree that we can be more certain of the existence of the apostles, perhaps that some of their teachings were actually widely propogated by them and several other details. However, I am not sure that we can argue from that to the actual belief in a God that has set down a certain set of rules and guides by which to live. Even if these historical details happen to be correct can we not simply say that Jesus was a misguided man with pacifistic principles that were particularly widespread and influential? This is even more of a problem in the Old Testament where one has to give concrete assertion to some things being said, effectively, straight from the mouth of God. How do we draw the connection between what these people are saying and its being derived from God? I think we just come back to the same original problem here. How do we draw a connection to a specific God, with the word of that God and hold that it asserts a more rational belief than, for example, a belief in a God not concerned with a strict word but a general state of benevolent affairs?

I know there are other arguments in this area as you say. Unfortunately they are difficult to encounter without some direction to the right areas and I haven't had that yet. Next year, perhaps, things will be a little different. What I do see as a serious consideration is the last comment you've made. It is also why I think the question of miracles is the most important argument relating to God that is currently considered.

If we could assert that a miracle involving one of the Apostles, Jesus himself, Mohammed, whatever religous figure you'd like to use, that gave support for the existence of a specific God then we have a more considerable argument. So this question inevitably comes back to Hume's argument by miracles. Now I will consider your above point, Seeker.

Hume's actual definition of a miracle was that it fulfill two criteria:

1.) It violates a law of nature.
2.) It is ordained by God.

There have been suggested improvements to these criteria but I don't want to go too far into these arguments as they're lengthy and complicated and I don't think they provide any serious problem for Hume.

The second criteria is a little difficult to assert but it mightn't be much a of a problem if your miracle contained some message or experience of a specific religous figure. I can think of a few problems with this but I don't want to head off on a tangent here.

The next question must of course be what a law of nature is. Hume defined it (paraphrasing here) as so:

Something which has been shown to conduct the order of the natural world from the weight of past experience.

Eg. the law of gravity.

The suggestion from this was that a miracle, by its very nature, is maximally improbable and so there exists no explanation that could be more improbable. Thus, we are not justified in believing that a miracle has occurred.

There is an obvious argument against this. If we're arguing from past experience to a law of nature then we're suggesting that anything that occurs to the contrary of that law of nature is not probable. After all, it defies all other past experience. If a miracle occurs then it violates that law. We don't need to reconsider that law because it is something of divine command. But we can never change that law. Yet, it is obvious that we adjust laws about the nature of our world all the time. We have a problem, but there is a reply.

This law of nature that has been violated by something other than a miracle (bear with me here) is not actually a law of nature. If it were it would not have an exception, except that of the miracle. Thus, it is only a supposed law of nature. BANG! We slam into another brick wall. If we're arguing from past experience how can we ever know if we have something that is showing that a supposed law of nature needs to be altered or if we have a miracle? After all, we're arguing from past experience. This is a serious objection to Hume's definition and one that I don't think that it overcomes. However, it has been suggest that this is not exactly what Hume was suggesting. The point is that this distinction may not actually matter if we alter the original definition.* Malcolm proposed such a change.

If we suggest that a miracle is something that is physically impossible (breaking laws of nature etc), but logically possible (something a divine will could actually do) then we overcome these problems. We are still forced to consider exceptions to current laws but we are now able to do so without objections of past experience. We can reason in any situation to whether it is more likely that a miracle has occurred, we have found something that can be explained by current laws of nature or whether this thing can be explained but only if we adjust a law of nature. I might sound like I'm going back to the my old argument here, but I'm not. Let me provide an example. A rock floating in mid air may be explained by any of the above criteria. It could be explained by magnetic fields and thus by a current law of nature. There may be something acting that we're not yet aware of and thus we need to change a law of nature, or it may be a miracle by the hands of God. You would have to show what divine purpose this was fulfilling, however. Now let's take the case of turning water into wine. Without anything that can be observed or tested the water just turns into wine by, seemingly, divine will. You may argue that there could be reasons for this but they are very difficult to ascertain and it seems far more reasonable to suggest that such a situation simply can't be explained. It is physically impossible. Yet it has happened, and thus logically possible.

This concept can be criticised but I don't think it can be really threatened. The arguments against it struggle to hold any tenable position in my opinion. With this definition we come back to Hume's point. A miracle is maximally improbable and so we are not justified in believing that it has occurred. It always more likely that you have been deceived or are mistaken.

In this case can we take any miracle involving evidence of a specific God as evidence for a specific God? I struggle to believe that is the case. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

So I think that, if Christianity can be shown true, it would probably be done in the person of Jesus and the works (both fruit and gifts) of the Holy Spirit. Showing that the Father is real would in all likelihood only get us to the God of Judea, not the God of the Christians.

This is a very good point and something I hadn't really considered. You are right in saying that the strongest link to the Christian God is through Jesus. However, you would have to assert that it is the Jesus of the Christian teachings and not Jesus the prophet that has appeared elsewhere. However, again, if you could show that miracles are acceptable this wouldn't be a huge problem.

What are your thoughts Seeker?

Further, what does everyone else think?

[I use "you" in general a lot, so sometimes when I don't specify that "you" is general people get offended. So just keep in mind that "you" is general! Thank you.]

To some people it's not necessarily rational to believe in God. All the debating in the world can't make God any more or less real than he is. There is no proof that God exists, that is unless you have experienced him first hand.
It's almost like hearing, if someone was born disabled so as they couldn't hear they would have no real proof that there is anything to hear. Even if they see people who are talking and experiencing music and such things, it still isn't real to them. It's quite the same with God. You can see people experiencing God all day long and it wouldn't make him more real to you than hearing is to the person who is deaf.
So if you've never experienced God it doesn't seem rational you that people believe in him.
I have never in my life met or even heard of a person who after they truly experience God has denounced him. Now I have heard of people who have converted to Atheism after hard trials in their Christian walks. But they always know that he's still there, that's why many of them cry out to him in their darkest hours. It's really hard to explain, the only analogy I can think of is love.
Someone who truly experienced love but then was hurt, then denounces love entirely saying that it is merely a chemical reaction in the brain. (Which it kinda is.) The same person knows somewhere in the back of their minds that the love they felt was real and they still feel love in some ways.
The same goes with Christianity. A Christian who truly experienced him denounces God after being hurt in some way, saying that he is just an old fashioned fable that makes people feel better about the world. They still, somewhere inside them they know he's real.
I don't know if that made any sense but that was the best analogy I could come up with. ^_^;

Nevi

To some people it's not necessarily rational to believe in God.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but do you mean that for some people rational argument and deduction isn't necessary to believe in God? That I can understand. I can think of at least one philosopher who would disagree but I'll go into that later. Otherwise are you suggesting that some people simply irrationally believe in God? I have to say I find such a statement absurd and contrary to the successful nature of faith in the first place. Irrational belief suggests misplaced belief and that would not coincide with healthy faith.

All the debating in the world can't make God any more or less real than he is. There is no proof that God exists, that is unless you have experienced him first hand.

A good point. Many of these arguments certainly have not succeeded in proving the existence or non-existence of God. I think more importantly with our present state of knowledge and a general idea of what it may be possible to discover in the future it may never be possible to prove, with even notional certainty, that God does or does not exist. Although, I think the conception of God in scripture will have to adapt to some new findings in the developing ideas od space and time but this isn't really an issue. I would suggest that these arguments exist more to rationalise that leap of faith into belief or non-belief in God. Faith is involved in both examples in my opinion, as strong evidence doesn't exist to wholly support either, but this again, isn't an issue.

This means you've brought this discussion to an interesting point. At what point can we and should we take evidence of our experiences as proof for God. This comes back, in part, to Hume's arguments against miracles but needs to be slightly altered.

You can see people experiencing God all day long and it wouldn't make him more real to you than hearing is to the person who is deaf.

I think hearing is a somewhat poor analogy but you noted that yourself and I understand the point you are trying to make. To believe in God you must experience Him first hand. Are you arguing from this that we are not rational in believing in God without experiencing Him firsthand? Would this mean that to believe in God I need to experience him first hand? Thus, if we are to be consistent with His nature and religous scripture in general it is necessary that at some point in my life God 'reveals' himself to me. Would you agree with that statement? Otherwise, if God never reveals himself to me first hand and I consequently don't believe in Him, can I be blamed for my lack of faith? It seems not. So for the nature of argument let's accept for the moment that every person at some point in their life experiences God first hand and is given a choice to believe or not.

This means that some people do and some people don't believe at this impasse.

Why would that be the case? Well, I guess it depends on the nature of the experience. It may be a miracle or something slightly different. My point would be this: how can you ever be sure that what you have experienced is God and not some sensory illusion? If you've experienced a miracle I would direct you to my reply to Seeker for a discussion of Hume's point regarding them. If you're talking about direct experience then we once again have to weigh up probabilities. These probabilities bring us back to the original arguments above about whether God exists. Again, that brings me back to the question of how we can ever know that we are experiencing a specific God.

But in the example of a message some kind directly from God or an ordained messenger one still has to ask the question of whether it is more likely that they are deceived or mistaken or experiencing the truth.

How do you know that your experience with God has been God and not some illusion on your part Nevi?

I meant the former. Some people just don't need rational argument or deduction for their faith. Some people get confused when you try to explain things rationally.

Essentially scripture is just a large chronicle in some sense, so I'm not exactly sure how it would need to adapt to findings in the ideas of space and time.

Yes, hearing was a poor analogy, but I'm not very good at analogies anyway.
But what I was trying to say was people try to rationalize God and say he isn't real because they have never experience him. Experiencing God isn't like this big sweeping thing where you pass out and are transcended to a higher level. Sometimes is could just be subtle feeling.

The Bible says that all men are given a chance to accept Christ. (I paraphrase here.) So I didn't mean that you HAD to experience him to believe in him. The point that I was trying to make is that unless you have experienced him there is no proof that he exists. But what's the definition of faith? "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." So says answers.com.

Well if you believe in one God then there is only one God that you can possibly experience. But yet again, this is all a mater of faith.

Well, sometimes you just have to believe that what you are hearing is true, but sometimes it's pretty obvious that the "ordianed messenger" is kinda off his rocker.
For an example my uncle was ministering in a Church once and this old man stood up and said, "Thus sayeth the Lord! Just as Elijah led the Israelites out of Egypt so should we lead our sinner friends out of the bondage of hell!" He paused for a minute then said, "For the Lord sayeth, I have made a mistake it was Moses not Elijah!" :lmao:
So yeah... it just depends.

Well, I can't explain it, somehow you just know.

If you want to research this further, look up Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God's existence on google. Other people have researched it a lot more then I have.

If you want to research this further, look up Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God's existence on google. Other people have researched it a lot more then I have.

Was that directed towards me?

If it was there are better sources for religous proofs than Thomas Aquinas. Much of his work has become outdated, even at purely introductory level. The only argument I can remember Aquinas still having some influence is the Cosmological Argument. He had a good standardised version of it that I still see appear from place to place.

If you want to research this fruther you should be looking at the writings of Quentin Smith, William Rowe, Alvin Plantinga and George Mavrodes. They've made some great contemporary strides.

Nevi

I'll reply to you later. Time is an issue for me at the moment. Exams :S

I understand, I'll wait. I'm going to be busy this coming week though, I'll be working at a conference. So I may not get to debate much.

I had to run after typing this, so I didn't get to reread it for editing. So sorry for any mistakes or indecipherables. :)

Raist

:D

Well, when I talk about historical inquiry I also have in mind finding out as much as we can about who Jesus was. I think that, from the historical texts we have, we can at least rule out some people that Jesus wasn't, even if we can't get a positive idea of who he was.

Hmmm. You're right. I think that the Old Testament can be rather problematic in this regard. This is made even worse by the fact that the purpose that much of the Old Testament serves us today is different from what it did around the time it was written. However, there is still some prophetic literature in the Old Testament that, if they're shown to be true can probably count towards the Old Testament (or at least that part of it) being from a non-human source, since we reason there's no other way humans could've arrived at the conclusion. And if we have a prophecy that says "X, y and z will happen, to show that I am a God who does p, q and r because of his attribuets a, b and c" then, if X, y and z happen as foretold, we may be inclined to believe that the rest of the stuff is true...

...although, I gotta say, it isn't that straight forward. For one, we have to assume that the whole prophecy is true. I mean, we can think up possible situations where X, y and z could happen but the rest still be false. What if the prophet speaking is receiving communication from aliens? What if his accuracy is coincidental? Some of these things are rather far-fetched, but they're still somewhat possible. I mean, why say that it's a god who exists outside of time and does other almost unbelievable things instead of, say, a technologically advanced race of aliens that have chosen to communicate with us in this way? The two seem almost equally implausible, yet some would say that the alien hypothesis is more plausible.

I say all that to say this: even with things like prophecy, a "leap of faith" is always involved. That's because I think the reasoning is always inductive and never deductive, and inductive reasoning is never absolute.

I can think of a few objections to this:

1. His characterisation of a miracle as something that necessarily breaks a law of nature. Why does he include that criterion? I usually think of a miracle as simply something that couldn't have happened without God's intervention. However, the thing may have to be unusual -- but not impossible or maximally improbable -- for us to give it any thought at all. Another way it can be put is that a miracle is an unusual or remarkable event brought about by God.

2. What do you guys mean by "breaking a law of nature"? It sounds like you're viewing a law of nature as an immutable rule that governs the happenings of the universe. However, I've seen Christians define laws of nature as the God-ordained customary order of the universe. It's customary because God may intervene and alter it in order for him to do something special. We may call this special thing a miracle.

(I don't think this particular point addresses your corresponding argument. It seems to me that you're not concerned with the impossibility of miracles -- which I think point usually deals with. I think you're more concerned with the rationality of believing that the miracle has actually occurred. Still, I thought I'd through this in for future reference. :P)

3. In line with my thinking in point one, I usually see miracles as God sometimes doing things with the laws of physics that we just don't know about. I mean, even with our limited knowledge we can imagine ways in which someone can be made to appear to walk on water, or how water may turn into wine. (The feeding of a few thousand with a few loaves of bread and two fish is a bit boggling though. >_>) For the water to wine thing, for example, we presume that it would involve a re-arranging of the atoms and molecules in the water so that they become the molecules that we find in wine. That sounds possible in principle. But then people might ask about the energy required to do this, and how God would do that without the flask melting, or without violating the thermodynamic law that energy can't be created, etc. But look at that: a few centuries ago we may have said that there's no conceivable way that water can be changed into wine. But now we have a way, yet we have questions about how that would be done. What's to say we won't one day have an idea about how it can be done?

The only thing about this is that it has the sense of taking away the awe from miracles. If they're only God doing things that we might one day be able to do, then they aren't so special, huh? But then that misses the point. Miracles aren't done because they're special; they're done to point people to God, to confirm His word or things like that. I think defining miracles as necessarily maximally improbable or physically impossible makes the mistake of seeing the extra-ordinariness of them as their defining feature, when it isn't. That's fine if you're using the informal definition of a miracle, but it isn't enough if you're being serious about what Christians believe.

Yet, having said all that, I think there's still more to say about what you said. >_>

Even though I just talked about not focusing too much on the specialness of miracles, the fact is that their specialness is a part of them, and that specialness can be a barrier to belief. However, since their specialness isn't necessarily maximally improbable-huge, then it isn't as big as what people sometimes say.

Yet, it's still there, huh? So that brings me back to what I talked about before: the leap of faith. (I hear Kierkegaard talks a lot about leaps of faith; but meh, I haven't read anything from him. :() Miracles, if we are inclined to believe them, can 'confirm' the faith we already have. But if we don't believe, then depending on how they're reported, they may widen the chasm that we have to leap over to believe. However, I'm inclined to think that they can narrow the chasm quite well, as long as we don't have any in-principle objections to them of the sort Hume proposes. Of course, there may be in-fact objections that would have to be evaluated miracle by miracle, but removing in-principle ones goes quite a way in reducing the length of the leap.

This isn't really relevant, but concerning miracles I was reminded of something a pastor friend of mine once said.
"There is coming a time where the supernatural will cease to exist, because the supernatural is becoming the natural."
In regards to this, in my opinion all things "rational" are relative. I think the definition of rational will change with the development of comprehension that man acquires. So things like people's severed limbs growing back will become rational as where before they were not.
I thought I'd just like to share that.

Ok, I have three posts to respond to here. EXAMS ARE DONE! Hurray. Anyway, I'll tackle them in chronological order. Nevi, you're first.

Nevi

I meant the former. Some people just don't need rational argument or deduction for their faith. Some people get confused when you try to explain things rationally.

I think I understand what you're saying but I just want to clarfiy something with you. There has to be a limit to the extent of which you can simply have faith without any rational justification. I mean that is the main point of all the crappy satires (like the spaghetti monster) that you see around the place. Faith, not supported by at least some reason, is a dangerous and possibly immoral thing. Now, I think what you're suggesting is that some people get confused if I were to try and explain some of these arguments for and against the existence of God to them. That I can understand. However, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that someone who is resting almost entirely on faith is a good scenario.

This is all related to a point that William Clifford raised in the 19th century. I'll address it a little later. I just want to comment at the moment that these arguments on their own are still useful to these people who may not want such a rational basis for belief. The outcome of these arguments themselves may have a bearing on pragmatic and moral faith.

Essentially scripture is just a large chronicle in some sense, so I'm not exactly sure how it would need to adapt to findings in the ideas of space and time.

You're right I phrased that poorly. What I mean to say is how we understand the notion of God, his powers and his relation to us may have to adapt in certain ways. God will not change in essence and the scripture is still the scripture (though some different interpretations may arise) but I think with an increasing understanding of our world and the its possibilities we may have to consider God in a different sense of a space/time context. In particular string and M theory makes me wonder exactly how we'll continue to view the universe and thus its possible creator. Wikipedia has a good section on both if you're interested.

But what I was trying to say was people try to rationalize God and say he isn't real because they have never experience him. Experiencing God isn't like this big sweeping thing where you pass out and are transcended to a higher level. Sometimes is could just be subtle feeling.

I think that's being a little unfair towards some athiests and agnostics. I can tell you personally that there have been times when I've felt or conceived of some notion of a benevolent presence around me, but I've never been sure that I could attribute that to a God, even less so to the specifics of a Christian God. This is the main issue here. Not whether those subtle feelings exist or whether some people do or don't experience them but how we can know that they pertain to a God and a specific God at that. I'm not sure how pure experience can help that. Further, as the sceptics have suggested, it is not inconceivable that some of these feelings could be illusions of our senses or even self-delusions that we unconcsiously choose to create.

The Bible says that all men are given a chance to accept Christ. (I paraphrase here.) So I didn't mean that you HAD to experience him to believe in him. The point that I was trying to make is that unless you have experienced him there is no proof that he exists. But what's the definition of faith? "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." So says answers.com.

Well, I think you might find some theists who disagree with that. The proponents of the Ontological Argument almost certainly would. Many people believe that you may not have to actually experience God in order to 'prove' He exists. I say 'prove' because I don't believe it is deductivily possible to prove with certainty that God exists. As to faith, I think that is a poor definition. I am not suggesting that it is not the definition that is generally accepted but I don't think it adequately represents what we might term as 'good faith'. By that definition of faith we are suggesting that believing something on faith is not a morally good thing. I mean, could I not have faith that males are intellectually, morally and physically superior or vice versa? Would that be considered a good notion? It would certainly not be based on reason and I can't imagine many people feeling warmly disposed towards it. There is little to no difference between a faith in that and a faith in God, by that definition. However, we both know that faith in God is not considered in that way.

I would like to suggest that faith in God is an emotional and passionate decision that comes once you have found an intellectual deadlock that is not likely to be solved. Further, quoting William James, that decision should be forced, living and momentous. Forced means that you are forced to make a positive or negative decision. Simply not making a decision will have the same consequences as not believing. Living means that the choice will actually have an affect on your life. It is not some insignificant matter. A momentous choice is one that you will not likely be able to make again. The choice is a one time matter. I would propose that this is a more adequate notion of faith (at least the first criteria) and that this is also a reasonable notion of faith. I would argue that some faith held in religion and other matters is groundless and dangerous.

Well if you believe in one God then there is only one God that you can possibly experience. But yet again, this is all a mater of faith.

I think that's a truism. I mean assuming we don't believe in muliple Gods. If one God exists then, yes, we can only experience that one God, but you're not actually answering the question. We're talking about choosing between representations of that God. Again, how do you know, with any measure of certainty that the Christian God exists? It seems to me a matter of experience. You might suggest that you've experienced what you believe to be the Christian God. Another person might attest that they have experienced what they believe to be the Hindu God, or for less problems, Allah. How do we decide who is correct? Or even who is most likely correct? Experience is no longer so useful.

Well, sometimes you just have to believe that what you are hearing is true, but sometimes it's pretty obvious that the "ordianed messenger" is kinda off his rocker.

Lol, sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said an ordained messenger I meant something in the form of the Angels or the Saints (as dead not alive). Legitimate ordainments from God that cannot be questioned amidst the problems of human experience. I would suggest that a person of the clergy is absolutely no justification for belief in a specific religion at all. By this I mean they may be able to convince you through argument and appeal to other sources of the truth of things, but that their word alone is never good enough for justification. I hope that's clear enough to understand.

Well, I can't explain it, somehow you just know.

I understand your point Nevi, but that honestly isn't good enough for justification. I mean...it doesn't provide any justification. I would ask that you attempt to explain that notion. I realise you may feel that I might not understand it and it's perfectly fine if I don't. What I'm looking for is the fact that you can make some justification of that fact. Further, how is it that you distinguish your religous experiences from other 'sensory illusions' such as seeing things that may not have been there etc.



Now it's Seeker's turn!

Seeker

You're simultaneously incredibly frustrating and incredibly rewarding. Have I ever told you that?

I think that, from the historical texts we have, we can at least rule out some people that Jesus wasn't, even if we can't get a positive idea of who he was.

I agree. I think defining Jesus in specific places and in specific ways may be problematic. The process of elimination seems most adequate. However, would you say we don't know enough about him at this time to make serious comments on the matter?

For one, we have to assume that the whole prophecy is true. I mean, we can think up possible situations where X, y and z could happen but the rest still be false. What if the prophet speaking is receiving communication from aliens? What if his accuracy is coincidental? Some of these things are rather far-fetched, but they're still somewhat possible. I mean, why say that it's a god who exists outside of time and does other almost unbelievable things instead of, say, a technologically advanced race of aliens that have chosen to communicate with us in this way? The two seem almost equally implausible, yet some would say that the alien hypothesis is more plausible.


I agree and I think this is exactly the problem with the Old Testament especially. We can certainly point to elements that may suggest of its truth but that evidence is often questionable. If it is not then how we can draw links between that and the notion that it must have been the work of a divine creator is still a difficult link to establish. Further, if any part of a prophecy or foretelling is incorrect it creates further doubt in the rest of the text and even further doubt in the notion that it was ordained by God. My point? We don't have the knowledge to make a justified claim either way. I just don't think these sources can be used alone for rational belief. It's like the G.E Moore shift response to the Problem of Evil. The notion of the scriptures will work if you can justify their validity via other arguments. Until that time I think they struggle.

I say all that to say this: even with things like prophecy, a "leap of faith" is always involved. That's because I think the reasoning is always inductive and never deductive, and inductive reasoning is never absolute.

This is an excellent point, but I don't think a leap of faith is involved purely because inductive and not deductive reasoning is involved. After all, inductive reasoning is a necessary part of our lives and while it doesn't offer certainty it can give high probability. My point with faith is that it comes at the very tether of logical reasoning. There appears to be little more we can make of the matter and this stage and it doesn't seem likely this will ever significantly change. My question is whether this faith is a moral action (I'll get into this later) and lastly if we know enough to suggest that faith has legitimate use towards a specific God.

1. His characterisation of a miracle as something that necessarily breaks a law of nature. Why does he include that criterion? I usually think of a miracle as simply something that couldn't have happened without God's intervention. However, the thing may have to be unusual -- but not impossible or maximally improbable -- for us to give it any thought at all. Another way it can be put is that a miracle is an unusual or remarkable event brought about by God.

Duly noted. This was one of the formal objections to Hume's criteria. It appears that his terms might not all be necessary. I'll use an example.

Let's suppose that a young boy is on a set of train tracks. His mother disappears to get lunch or something similar, though she is not far away. A train starts heading down the tracks and the young child is caught. The mother can't get to her child to save him in time but, miraculously, the train is coming to a stop long before the driver could have seen the child. The train stops mere inches before the child. It turns out that the driver had fainted a little way down the train and without his response the train had automatically begun to stop. He fainted due to high blood pressure after a large lunch and an argument with a co-worker. Would you consider this a miracle?

It seems that many people would and importantly, a miracle that could be seen to have been ordained by God. The chances of these events happening is very small and it seems that only God would have the power to arrange their occurence. However, no laws of nature have been broken. Yet, I don't think this can be a labelled as a miracle. It might possibly be one, but again I don't believe we can label it as so.

The problem is this. As no law of nature has been broken we can quite easily suggest that these events, however unlikely, simply occurred. We weigh probabilites yet again. Is it more unlikely that these events occurred or that a large variety of conditions exist of which God is the central one. It's a difficult question to answer and it may in fact fall in God's favour. However, we need to look at the history of young children on train tracks. Let's assume that a similar scenario to this has occurred 100 times. Let's then assume that 99 of those times the child died. This was the only exceptional occassion. It is likely that over the course of history incredibly unlikely events will occur. This may be just one of them, which on a qualitative scheme effectively makes the event likely. Considering this it becomes very difficult to ascribe such an event to the hand of God. I would argue that this point is strong enough to eliminate such instances on the back of, once again, lack of knowledge.

It's customary because God may intervene and alter it in order for him to do something special. We may call this special thing a miracle.

I think this definition will still work with the argument. As I said earlier it needs to be something that it physically impossible but logically possible. I would argue that this means the rules that govern the customary order of the universe (as you suggest) can only be broken by God, or at least a being with God's powers, eg. the devil may be able to break a law of nature but this wouldn't be called a miracle as it wouldn't be ordained by God. The point is that for the customary order of the universe to have been broken something maximally improbable has happened. Should we believe it has occurred? We can't refer to the explanation of God changing things around as that would clearly be begging the question.

I think you're more concerned with the rationality of believing that the miracle has actually occurred

That is correct. But I enjoy a good argument nevertheless. :)

I usually see miracles as God sometimes doing things with the laws of physics that we just don't know about. I mean, even with our limited knowledge we can imagine ways in which someone can be made to appear to walk on water, or how water may turn into wine.

This is true, and it is one of the possible suggestions when such an event occurs. God may be influencing events through purely natural means that we have no awareness of, or these things could just be 'naturally' occurring and again we have no awareness of them. The water and wine are good examples. Eg, perhaps one day we will know of an element that dropped in water will turn to wine instantly. It's not entirely unfeasible. However, I don't think this adequately addresses the point.

The feeding of a few thousand with a few loaves of bread and two fish is a bit boggling though. >_>

This is the kind of example I am talking about, and it can be applied to the other cases as well. The problem is when something occurs and it doesn't seem we are able to suggest a cause that exists within the natural universe or even be able to suggest that we ever might be able to. Creating all of that food in the blink of an eye with no evident actions on the part of Christ might be one such example.

But then people might ask about the energy required to do this, and how God would do that without the flask melting, or without violating the thermodynamic law that energy can't be created, etc. But look at that: a few centuries ago we may have said that there's no conceivable way that water can be changed into wine. But now we have a way, yet we have questions about how that would be done. What's to say we won't one day have an idea about how it can be done?

You're right. These supposed laws are being adjusted everyday and it does make it somewhat difficult to start pinning down a very defined notion of a miracle. However, I don't it is impossible. New theories are being postulated daily and this is one reason why I believe we may need to rethink of our conception of God over the next few hundred years and some of the things that may have occurred in the past that we thought were breaking laws of nature may not actually have done so. But we're left open to a few suggestions. Does God never break those laws? If so, how can we start attributing these things to him? We come back to the earlier problem of not being able to direct the cause. Secondly, I'm sure you can imagine a situation of some natural law of the universe that we do know about and that is true. Can we not imagine a case where something has happened that completely contradicts something we know about the world? Something that it doesn't seem possible to contradict?

I know this leads back to your earlier point, but I don't think the notion of some miracle not, perhaps, breaking a law of nature does much to invalidate the argument.

Miracles aren't done because they're special; they're done to point people to God, to confirm His word or things like that. I think defining miracles as necessarily maximally improbable or physically impossible makes the mistake of seeing the extra-ordinariness of them as their defining feature, when it isn't.

Point taken. It is possible as well that miracle may occur that doesn't do enough to attract our attention, but it could still fit the above criteria. I accept your point, but I don't think it helps your stance. We're still left with the question of not being able to draw links to that event and to God. Let alone a specific God. This is the problem you face. The very nature of a natural law being broken strongly suggests the existence of a God, but that also makes it highly improbable that it occurred. However, without that you no longer have a strong basis to connect an event with God's will.

However, since their specialness isn't necessarily maximally improbable-huge, then it isn't as big as what people sometimes say.

This is an often quoted defence for theism. But I'm not entirely sure it holds up for the reasons I've suggested above. However, I've written this in-between battlegrounds in WoW, so you might need me to clarify some points.

(I hear Kierkegaard talks a lot about leaps of faith; but meh, I haven't read anything from him. sad.gif)

I really need to read some of his stuff. All I hear is praise of Kierkegaard. However, I know William James had an interesting argument for faith. Check him out.

But if we don't believe, then depending on how they're reported, they may widen the chasm that we have to leap over to believe. However, I'm inclined to think that they can narrow the chasm quite well, as long as we don't have any in-principle objections to them of the sort Hume proposes. Of course, there may be in-fact objections that would have to be evaluated miracle by miracle, but removing in-principle ones goes quite a way in reducing the length of the leap.

I think you've wrapped up the entire notion of significance of miracles in that one paragrap. I congratulate you and envy your writing ability.

And finally back to Nevi :)

In regards to this, in my opinion all things "rational" are relative. I think the definition of rational will change with the development of comprehension that man acquires. So things like people's severed limbs growing back will become rational as where before they were not.
I thought I'd just like to share that.

I think you're confusing your notion of rational. It is certainly true that with the more knowledge we attain certain things that may once have not been considered rational will become so, but there are strong suggestions that some things cannot change in regard. It simply appears that by the very nature of our limited consciousness we can't get much further than we already have. Religion and these arguments fall under that category and even the argument from miracles that I have just suggested. Seeker has made some excellent points about what may be considered miracles now that later will not be, but it doesn't seem possible that that definition of a miracle can be altogether done away with in our further progression.

My point is that what is rational is not as relative as you are supposing. What influences it and what may be considered rational is relevant to certain factors, but the definition and criteria of something being rational cannot be, and with the fact that it appears we may not be able to progress beyond some points of knowledge we already have notions of rationalism that may hold quite well for humanity in general.

Peace out.

Whoo, I lot to reply too.

I agree that it is dangerous for beliefs to be based entirely on faith. If that was what you though I was implying forgive me for not being clearer. The Bible in James says that faith without works is dead. When you have faith, it should propel you into action. But action without faith has no meaning. You can feed a group of people all day long and they begin to have a welfare mentality. But if you feed the people and teach them that they are loved by their Creator and that he has a great purpose that gives them faith and hope for their future. Now you have a group of people that do not feel alone but know that they have a heavenly father that cares about their life and about their welfare. A perfect example of this would be children. A child that is raised with a positive parental force in their life usually grows up having a greater sense of self worth and statistically, becomes successful.
Let me explain, the kind of faith that I have in God is not blind. I have faith in God like a father. The Bible calls God on many occasions "Abba Father." Now, the closest translation of that into English would be Daddy. (See this article.)
Now I know that a lot of people have trouble with this because of all the bad fathers on earth. But God is the model father, like Mr. Cleaver from Leave it to Beaver. lol
Another reason I believe in God is because I know exactly who I am. I am Jesus Christ personified to the earth. I am the word of God. This may sound to some people sacrilegious but it is all in the Bible. I believe in God because I am a part of God. The Bible says, "Let us make man in our image." (Gen. 1:26) It also say that we are the body of Christ, and for years I believed that is was wrong to think I was like Jesus. We would always say "Oh, I wanna be like Jesus." But we never realized that we are Jesus. We called ourselves the the body of Christ yet how can his body not be his body? Faith is only apart of my belief but I also believe because I know, that I know, that I know who I am.
...I kinda got off on a tangent there. Sorry.

I agree that entirely resting on faith is not a good idea, but some people are just that way.

Oh I understand what your trying to say. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand. I might check up on those articles if I get the time. It seems interesting.

What you mean by "the specifics of a Christian God."

How does this sound? When you experience Him you tell me how you justify it. Otherwise there is no way I can prove it to you.

Can you provide their arguments? I would like to see their points of view.

I've never been particularly fond of that definition either. What I was merely trying to say was faith really isn't that rational.

Don't believe me, ask God. You ask God if he's real, talk to him. It's not about religion it's relationship.

Well as a Protestant Christian, Saints aren't really apart of my religion.
But I have seen Angles, I followed one around a hall once. I saw one sitting on a seat in a hotel room. I thought it was my father so I called out to him, then my father opened the door to the other room. There was another I saw randomly walking around my house for about a month. There are also lots of others, that I don't remember too well.

The thing is, I can't justify it.

Gah, I forgot about this topic. I'll try to respond to it tomorrow.

G'night!

Reading through the first few posts, I'm getting the general jist of this topic. ^^ By the way, Raist, if there's any bad blood between us from past deabtes, forgive me. I know you're above trivial forum drama. :lol:

Anyway, back on topic.

Can I tell you a story? One day, a man was talking with God. He said to God, "God, show me a miracle!" At that moment, a butterfly flew past him. He waved it away, and said again, "Lord, show me a miracle!" Just then, thunder clapped in the sky, and rain fell to the ground. The man rushed inside his house, and once again said, "God, show me a miracle!" A few seconds later, the phone rang, and he recieved news that his pregnant sister had just given birth to a baby boy. As he put the phone down, he once again said, "Lord, show me a miracle!"

The moral of the story is that God wants to work a miracle in your life, or He wants to come into your heart, but you're either not searching hard enough, or not looking in the right place. Maybe you're looking too hard, when it's so simple.

What it comes down to, is, that it's not the amount of faith you have, it's whether you are willing to let your guard down and actually follow through with the "what ifs". God is not the Author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), but He wants you to understand.

When people first accept Christ (become a Christian), they feel as if a great burden is lifted. They realise that God loves them, and can save them from the eternal damnation that is promised for all those who choose not to believe in Him. Akiko, a lady at our church, got saved in the summer time, because she realised that very thing. You don't need a "miraculous" experience with God, because who can define miraculous? We all have our own standards, just like the man at the beginning of my post. But when you know you're forgiven, you feel a peace. A miracle takes place there and then.

You're right, who can say that the Koran is any different from the Bible, or the Buddhists from the Hindu? Someone put it very well, though, when they said that---

"All religions and beliefs try to find ways to reach up to God and get to Heaven, when Christianity is the only faith where God is reaching down to man, and has already provided the way to Heaven."

Unlike Atheism, and other no-God religions and beliefs, Christianity provides hope, that there is life after death. To be honest with you, I don't fear death, because I know I have nothing to fear when it's my time. ^_^ (1 Corinthians 15:55)

If Atheism is right, that there is no God, and we came purely from chance, and we have no Great Authority, than where did moral ethics come from? For example, why do we think it's wrong to kill, isn't it survival of the fittest? I mean to make a point by this, and it's this: Where is the rationality to believe there is no God?


If I've completely missed the subject of this topic, forgive me. :sweat: Jumbled-ness.

I know I haven't been around in awhile and it doesn't look like the Lifestream has really missed me. I oggled at the list of recent topics. Not my thing.

Anyway, as I have been away for awhile I'll try to respond to both Nevi and ER. However, because I'm a little lost as to what my main point in this debate would have originally been I shall reply to ER first. Apologies Nevi.

Reading through the first few posts, I'm getting the general jist of this topic. ^^ By the way, Raist, if there's any bad blood between us from past deabtes, forgive me. I know you're above trivial forum drama. laugh.gif

No need to apologise. :D

Can I tell you a story? One day, a man was talking with God. He said to God, "God, show me a miracle!" At that moment, a butterfly flew past him. He waved it away, and said again, "Lord, show me a miracle!" Just then, thunder clapped in the sky, and rain fell to the ground. The man rushed inside his house, and once again said, "God, show me a miracle!" A few seconds later, the phone rang, and he recieved news that his pregnant sister had just given birth to a baby boy. As he put the phone down, he once again said, "Lord, show me a miracle!"

The moral of the story is that God wants to work a miracle in your life, or He wants to come into your heart, but you're either not searching hard enough, or not looking in the right place. Maybe you're looking too hard, when it's so simple.

I'm sorry to say this ER, but you're not on my wavelength.

Firstly, my problem is with your definition of a miracle. I defined a miracle as a an act ordained by God that violates a law of nature. Nothing which you've just given as examples violates laws of nature. As a miracle is a priori as unlikely as anything can be it is more reasonable to suggest that that butterfly, the thunder and the rain are merely natural events. Now I know this misses the gist of your argument, but I'm just trying to get you back onto what my argument was. That miracles are not a rational basis for believing in God.

Secondly, you mention this idea of needing to 'choose' to accept these things as miracles. Are you suggesting I choose to accept the beauty in them (ie. using the term miracle in a somewhat colloquial sense) or that I can view them as miracles ordained by God if I so wish? These things seem far too mundane to consider miracles at all. What would Jesus turning water into wine be considered in comparison? More importantly, what you're suggesting is circular reasoning. If I choose to believe that these are miracles ordained by God then I can see that they are miracles ordained by God. You can't use your conclusion as a premiss for your argument.

This isn't so much about making a choice as looking for some objective - I realise that is a limited term here - justification for belief in God. I'm arguing that miracles do not provide that.

it's whether you are willing to let your guard down and actually follow through with the "what ifs"

This is the problem of faith that William Clifford proposed many years ago. What you are suggesting is making a momentous decision based on insufficient evidence. Again, I realise that insufficient evidence is an ambiguous term but that is not a problem in this case as you are acknowledging that faith is necessary. You're accepting that you're making a decision based on insufficient evidence. Now whether that is as ultimately immoral as Clifford suggested is still up in air but I think it at least suggests that we can't simply 'let our guard down and follow through with the "what ifs"'. Those 'what ifs' are the most important thing we have for rational and ultimately - ideally - beneficial futures. That's a little vague but I can't be bothered clarifying it for the time being. If you'd like me to, I will.

When people first accept Christ (become a Christian), they feel as if a great burden is lifted.

Again, you're jumping too far ahead. I'm still asking for justification to accept Christ at all. The only possible argument you're presenting for that at the present point is a possible pragmatic one. That we should believe in God (and possibly a Christian God, though that's a more complex argument) as we're better off if we do, regardless of whether there is any truth to the matter and whether we have adequate justification for it. If you do wish to take that path you'll need to expand upon it.

"All religions and beliefs try to find ways to reach up to God and get to Heaven, when Christianity is the only faith where God is reaching down to man, and has already provided the way to Heaven."

It's an interesting point but I think you'll be hard pressed without further argument to put Christianity above any other religion.

Unlike Atheism, and other no-God religions and beliefs, Christianity provides hope, that there is life after death.

You make it appear that we need hope for life after death. Again, what you're typing isn't an argument that provides justification for the existence of the Christian God. At the most it is trying to give some pragmatic argument for belief in God regardless of whether we have any good justification to do so. As I've said above this creates a dangerous precedent for the harmful use of faith elsewhere. Faith is too slippery a concept to be used liberally and without criticism.

One can lead a happy and fulfilling life as an athiest or agnostic.

If Atheism is right, that there is no God, and we came purely from chance, and we have no Great Authority, than where did moral ethics come from?

You're assuming that morals have some concrete basis. They don't. Ethics is an incredibly difficult area to apply and concrete certainty to. Our moral etchis don't appear to be ordained or given so much as constantly shaping and evolving. Now you may question how we make such decisions. In a majority of cases it is based upon a very general utilitarian principle; that we should attempt to create the greatest good for the greatest number. It's not difficult to see that our morals and ethics can be created by man for its own purposes. As to why we have developed this function - assuming you're not asking for a scientific reason - then we may only have the same answer that Bertrand Russell gives in response to being asked what caused the universe to begin. It is not a question that has any rational answer on our behalf.

For example, why do we think it's wrong to kill, isn't it survival of the fittest? I mean to make a point by this, and it's this: Where is the rationality to believe there is no God?

You need to stop thinking of survival of the fittest in such general terms. Think of it in societal and communal terms. Humans stopped acting as individual entities a long time ago. Secondly, Richard Dawkins argues that our evolution (I understand you have issues with this but bear with me) towards a smarter creatures that can create culture, society, art etc has lead to our leaving this notion of survival of the fittest. He suggested that once we could create history and a continuous culture we were no longer succeptible to the notion of natural selection in the same way we once were. A touchy subject but it goes to show that your issues about our morals in spite of other seeming problems are not well grounded.

As in reference to disbelief in God; you have several problems. Firstly, yes, if you are an athiest you have a somewhat difficult time on your hands. Most good athiests I've known have argued from two main points. Firstly, the problem of evil has been a glaring issue for some and it certainly has some decent backing if not totally sufficient and secondly I've heard from several people that religion continually attempts to answer questions that it makes no sense to ask. The notion of a soul being a particularly pointed issue.

However, I am an agnostic and so your question poses no problem for me. Until I find sufficient evidence to either believe in God or disbelieve in Him I make no decision, but I can tell you that I think it nearby impossible for you to find the kind of justification for a specific God that would be adequate to sway me.

What you have to remember, ER, is that the burden for proof is not laid upon the athiests and agnostics. We are making no positive statement. To disbelieve or suspend belief in the absence of evidence is the logical step to take. It is up to you and your religion to provide the proof and reason necessary to make us believe that the Christian God does exist.

No problem, I haven't been on lately either so I think I can wait.

So sorry to butt in guys, but I just want to give my perspective. I am a Christian and here in the Philippines, the Catholic religion is taught in schools. However, we've came across topics about the ten commandments. In the first commandment, "You shall not have other gods beside me", I clearly understand this and I believe there is a God. One of the appointed sins here is schism. Now, I got few contratries about this, I think parting yourself from the Church and you're not believing the Pope, it clearly has no offenses on the commandment, because you still believe in God. There were times I'm opposed on the existence of God, even though I am a Christian, there is always these scientific theories that explains the creation; either you believe Big Bang or the 7 Days of Creation, being realistic, I believe on scientific theories. No offense to protestants, they said that their religion is actually a sin. I also am offensed for this even being Catholic, but I think what matters here is you being a believer, the only contrast is their beliefs and practices.
Things might be coincidents or miracles, but mostly, being very realistic, I don't believe in miracles. I dont' have any experience from it whatsoever that really made me think it is impossible.
But there was a time when I was really ill and I was alone in my house. I've slept for hours and I got a dream that made me believe, there is a God. The scenario was like this; God is at the waterfalls, sitting on the rocks. I approached him and asked, "Lord, where can I get some medicine?" then he put his hand on my forehead then said, "You've been cured." When I woke up, I felt better already. Don't worry, I have no troubles getting along with atheists.

Sorry about not replying straight away. First of all, Resha, how can you say you're a Christian if you don't believe in Miracles? Jesus performed many miracles in the Bible. If you're a Christian. surely you believe everything the Bible says?

Okay. Fair enough. :) I see what you mean.

No, that's okay. I see your point. Like you said, that's what justifies Faith. This piece of Scripture that I'm going to give to you prolly won't make the slightest difference, but I want to show you it anyway:

Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." --John 20:29

Thomas didn't want to believe that Jesus was alive until hehad seen Jesus for himself. That's the kind of faith God requires. By all means, ask questions, but what it comes down to is that what you feel in your heart and soul is what matters. I don't want this to turn into a scientific conversation (we have other topics for that!), but the faith of the Lord is based on knowing what Christ has done for you. It's not just believing; it's actually putting that belief into action and telling God, "Hey, I'm giving my life fully to You." Lucifer believes in God. He knows God's real. But he doesn't want God to rule his life. I think I've stayed from the point a little, but I wanted to say it. :lol:

I wasn't. It's fully up to you if you want to have Christin your heart, between you and God. I'm just telling what happens if you do do it.

It isn't difficult for me. God has laid down the ground rules. Why should it be difficult? We know it's wrong to steal, to murder, even to be rebellious to authority. Why is it difficult to understand when God laid down the Ten Rules over 4,000 years ago?

I'm going to try and convert you. :) It's up to you, in the end. I hope you keep searching.

I'm sorry for reviving this topic back, but there's an unanswered question left for me:

*winces*, you sound like my teacher--she yelled at me when I told her "I don't believe in miracles". Yes, I don't believe in miracles--but that was, before I had a dream I've said before.

Can that be considered as a miracle, ER? In my youth, my family hardly go to church, because the Christian church is in such a great distance away from my home, and rarely you find me reading the Bible. Would you believe me that the only time I knew different kinds of sins is when I transferred here in the Philippines? In South Korea, seldom I hear about Jesus, God and all, and my parents didn't taught much about our religion.

I would like to ask one question. This has been bothering me for the longest time. And i do hope i do not offend any body with my views but i feel that i cannot think about religon without this question answered, in some sense at least.

If there really was a being such as God, who is almighty, powerful, forgiving, and full of love...Then why if there so much suffering in the world?
Weren't we created in his image?
Weren't we his creation? His people?

Why does he allow bad things to happen to us then?
Where was he during the world wars? Where was he on 9/11? Where is he when a child is being abused? Or someone is being murdered?

Why would he create somthing and then just leave it be? To suffer and die?

In the bible it states that he is a selfish God who wants everyone's love.
Does that mean if we do not worship him then we are vulnerable to the evil, in any, in the world?

Not once throughout my entire life has any of my prayers been answered.
How can i belive that he is listening to me?
I have gone to church and been a good catholic girl for most of my life and i still have yet to have something that i have prayed for so hard given to me.

Didn't he also say "Ask and you shall recieve."?

As a Christian, there are moments I doubt there was God because I believe in scientific theories and random beliefs. But I will tell you the world is not perfect. A firm believer would say: God had given each of his people the gift of freedom to choose right or wrong.

Honestly I've been wondering about the word, selfish too. :unsure: I'm a Christian and I've been living only under one policy: Do good and you go to heaven. I don't even know if I can call myself as a Christian, in my childhood I haven't learned most about Christianity.

Really? Can you name that prayer you wish to be granted?

My apologies Resha but it seems to be a bit to personal for me to post. So with all do respect I'd rather not say.


But you do make a few very good points however.
For example, God gave us the right of freedom to choose. But doesn't that mean he knew what way we would choose before we have choosen it? Meaning he already knew we were or weren't going to heaven?

Oh, I'm sorry. :huggle:

I'm still learning, but from stock knowledge, yeah, he already know we're going to heaven or hell. He knows who we'll end up with, when we're going to die, gawd, the man upstairs knows everything!!! But still, sometimes I think he's not even real. :whistle:

Yeah i stopped believing in him a while ago. I guess you can say it somehow faded.
To me , a man who noones knows his origins is just plain scary. :unsure:

Well as Resha stated God gave man free will. Free will to choose it accept god or not. Men do many wicked things though. Satan is said to roam the earth to and fro.

This is correct, we are created in his image.

Adam was created perfect. He was the first man ever put on this earth. Yet, he sinned. How can something perfect sin? Its all done with free will. It proves that sin is the choice. Its impossible say someone can't resist sin.

God as a purpose for everything. Even if its bound to die, it served the purpose God designed it for.

I don't recall it saying he was selfish, but I do recall it saying he is a jealous God. He wants no other God before him. His is the one and only. God has Rightious wrath.

Jesus uses rightious wrath in the synagogue. In the place where all the quote "holy" people were said to be, is where the seed of Satan was. Jesus pointed that out. He revealed that all the priests people trembled and bowed too, were the real evil.

That is a very good question.

You have to remember, sometimes things we pray for can take years to happen. My father is a preacher, and I've asked my mother about this. She's told me herself she's prayed for things that took years to happen. We can't always expect to pray for something, and it instantly comes.

I've gone to church my whole life. My parent's devote every minute of their time to God and the Bible.
But it takes more than just going to church, being a good person, praying... you have fully devote yourself to God. You have to give him your all, and truely accept him in your heart. God will provide everything you'll need in life. We shouldn't only read and learn about God only on Sunday's. It should be something done everyday.

Many, many things have happened in my life that's made me question my own faith. Sometimes I don't even believe in God. I ask so many times, "why". When bad things happen, I wonder what I've done to deserve it.
That's why many Chrstian's lose their faith when things in their life go wrong. They question God. God test's people's faith, to see if they've truely accepted Christ. Many people call themselves Christian's, but end up not being lined up with the Bible.

But God gives and takes away. We can recieve his blessings, but he can just as well take them away.

O_O sister you rock. I'm starting to have full faith in Him... *reads the Bible more*

Uh, question. Can Buddha be considered as a god or some deity? Most Asians are in this religion especially the Chinese Japanese and Korean race though I never got a chance to question some temple priests.

when god said this he mean't his love.

the lord said all things will happen for a reason small to big some things happen like 9/11,some believe it's the true begining to armagedon by the way don't be afraid of it thats not the end of the world the lord said this is a world without end it purely means end of times end of the evil in the world people who believe that put up a good argument alot of the signs have been fullfilled.

yes this is also true this is were temptation comes from all we have to do is read the book of Job thesame book that brought me to religion it's about a contest between saten and god and job was the subject the devil wanted somebody to tempt to his side he wanted somebody utmost holy so god said hast thou considerd my servant job there is nobody like him on earth. so it begain everything was takin away his crops his sheep his workers his children everything but his faith nobody can take that so in the end the devil gave up and god rewarded job with double everything he had. alot more happens in the story you'll have to read it though to long to type.

No, true Buddhists have never considered Buddha a deity. He is an example to follow--to be enlightened and escape the cycle of suffering--but no, Buddha has always been a man.

Actually, I'm speaking of him as if that where his name--but no, Buddha is a title for 'one who is enlightened'. There have been many Buddhas and bodhisattva, but Siddhartha Gautama is the main one that comes to mind when the topic of Buddhism comes up.

I think I've picked up a Bible a hand full of times and skimmed through the pages. xD And my father is a friggin' preacher for heaven's sakes. If I told him that he'd be like "NO INZERWEB FOR J00!"

It amazes me what I can pull out of my butt when I'm debating about the Bible too. Maybe all those slow Sunday mornings at church when I was resting my eyes I was actually listening. o.o

[QUOTE]No, true Buddhists have never considered Buddha a deity. He is an example to follow--to be enlightened and escape the cycle of suffering--but no, Buddha has always been a man


so he's basicly like a type of prophet like jesus but with no direct link to god

I suppose you could look at it that way. By all means, check out the website.

Here's a nice one:

http://www.buddhanet.net/

Here's a five minute overview, (I love how convenient it is XD):

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

thanks for clairifying that and thanks for the links they were very helpful :cleris: :huggle:

No problem! :D

Gee, been a long time. Study break between exams so I have time to type something :)

I again apologise to Englishrose and Nevi. If either of you guys read this and want me to reply to your posts in this topic I'll be glad to do so. Let me know.

But for now, I turn to goddessinpink's post (I hope you don't mind if I refer to you as gpink).

Gpink

Well as Resha stated God gave man free will. Free will to choose it accept god or not. Men do many wicked things though. Satan is said to roam the earth to and fro.

True, however how would you consider the calvinist position? Admittedly the Christian God tells us we have free will but doesn't this conflict with our very concept of God as an all knowing, all loving, all powerful being(AKLP)? Surely if we spe