|
theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/18/2008 8:39:42 PM)
|
quote:
(theo) First, the evidence is not what made beleivers out of the "faithful" but rather it is the fact they were taught it as babes by their parents.
(wayward1) Sure, among other things, it most definitely is not "evidence" that causes faith. That's a contradiction in terms anyway. Faith is what a person has when they can't or don't know. Evidence is used to help us "know" things.
I didn't make myself very clear. I did not mean to imply or state that evidence did not produce faith, I rather wished to explore the fact that the parents teaching it was what led to faith, more than the facts of evidence themselves. I think evidence does produce faith, because evidence is not proof, and faith is also not dependent upon proof.
quote:
(theo) In those cases in which parents did not so teach, the evidence becomes such that it is necessary to convince with testimony, as to the meaning behind the evidence; as well as the application that is slanted to make believers of us all.
(wayward1) Very hard to follow this.
(theo) Sorry 'bout that. I am simply pointing out that not all children had parents that taught them the traditions of their forefathers. It then becomes necessary for someone to teach those offspring, through the use of compelling testimony as the "best evidence" tool for teaching.
quote:
(theo)In other words the evidence, if left to its own strength, would not have made believers in the Christian God. THAT is precisely why even God did not depend upon such trivialities to lead men to Him.
He depended upon a special revelation, given to specific and special men, and backed his revelation up with specific and special deeds that served to convince those with whom he was dealing at that time.
(wayward1) Yes, so specific and special in fact that thousands of years after the revelation many corners of the earth are still utterly absent of the word.
(theo) Not "still utterly absent" but rather "AGAIN utterly absent." Paul said the gospel went to all the earth. The fact that it is not found in all the earth today is a quiet testimony to the fact it was rejected by some, or by the descendents of some who did in fact hear it from those early preachers.
quote:
(theo) Is God logical? It is rightly said that "God" must first be defined. I think it is also necessary to first define "logical." Most people, and certainly some on this board, think of "logic" in the sense of "I understood what he said, therefore it must be logical."
I would question the originator of the thread, as to what he meant by his question, as to what "logical" means.
(wayward1) Perhaps, but requesting a definition of "logical" opens the floor to interpretation for a word that needs none.quote:
(theo) I think you have correctly put your finger right on the problem with anything based in "faith" to be considered as based in "logic." It becomes contradictory. Besides, it is not what the scriptures teach. God did not kill himself on a cross. Of course now it begins to flail like a serpent without its head, as contradictory doctrines come to the fore.
(wayward1) Being open to interpretation, I suppose it is perfectly valid to correct my interpretation to your interpretation. Will you at least grant me that Christians believe God acted through Jesus to a sufficient degree to consider Jesus God's earthly embodiment?
Even if you won't, perhaps I should change my summary to this: "For God so loved the world He killed His only begotten Son to save His own Creation from His own Wrath"
While it was true the death of Jesus was with the full intent and foreknowledge of God, God did not kill him. Jesus was "by the hands of wicked men, crucified and slain."
quote:
I do know that every civilization of man has believed in deity of some kind, so it would seem to be a universal need. "Logic?" I am not sure of that, but certainly a necessity.
(wayward1) Did you not read my long post above, or did you not find it intriguing in any way? Just curious. Could it not also be logical to think that self aware beings would be expected to subconsciously invent answers to life's most difficult questions?
(theo) It has been said, "If God did not reveal himself to man, man would have to invent God to himself."
quote:
(wayward1) I'll copy the pertinent part of that post here for you so you don't have to dig. Please present me with a "logical" reason to think something counter to what follows.
At present only one thing remains for which a suitable natural explanation does not yet exist, and that is the majestic and mysterious origin of our beautiful universe. Very naturally, and in keeping with the whole of human history, many humans currently believe a supernatural God exists outside of our universe as its creator. To those people, this God answers this last unanswerable question.
To embrace this belief though, they must ignore or remain ignorant of the fact that there are countless instances where supernatural explanation has given way to natural explanation, and not one instance in all of human history where the replacement has gone the other way; where natural understanding has been replaced by supernatural understanding, not one.
(theo) I think it may be a bit too much to expect that which has a natural understanding to be replaced with a supernatural explanation. If for no ohter reason, the simple fact of "satisfaction." Man does not question that with which he is satisfied.
quote:
(wayward1) They are on the wrong side of history.
Some elect to ignore history and expect that this time, just for them, a natural explanation will not one day replace their currently believed supernatural explanation. I do not think history's trend will be broken. I think history will repeat itself as it tends to do, and a natural explanation will one day replace this supernatural explanation. I understand the big profound and sublime "why" to be natural law. Since time and time again natural explanations have replaced the previous supernatural explanations that were "supposed" by men who just did not yet know how all of those things worked. Because nature is what was actually at work when humans imagined Gods to be at work so many times in the past, I believe it was nature that man was worshiping whether directly or indirectly, it matters very little.
(theo) If the natural world was the only thing under consideration, I might find much in what you have said, for me to be in agreement with you. However, the natural world is insufficient and unable to serve as explanation for much that is observable in that same natural world.
The natural world cannot explain the reason for the developement of conscience, consciousness, guilt, sapience itself. "Chance" does not explain any of it, it only exercerbates the problem. And while the problem of division within the church itself may serve to drive away many weaker believers, it is not the fact of a weak supernatural, but the fact of a disbelieving following which is responsible for that.
When the Christian world splits into thousands of denominations, how can we expect a world of unbelievers to see in us anything salvageable or desirable for them to emulate?
If however, the churches all came together,a nd in truth, taught the same thing, and expressed one faith, the world could then see in us something beyond our natural man, and look to see what it is we have that they might benefit from. Then it would be a simple matter of teaching so they could grow from faith to faith.
I do not think the natural world will ever replace the supernatural explanations for what is beyond natures pervue.
|
|
|
|