A brief statement of faith:
I believe that God exists, that He created the universe and He cares about people. I believe that the Bible is true, the divinely inspired word of God. Therefore, I will try to live my life according to what the Bible teaches.
This is something I've believed for a long time, but the Bible College experience has helped solidify it for me. I hope that going forward it will be a bigger part of my life.
Since I do not have perfect knowledge I cannot make a claim to know with 100% certainty that this is true, instead I take it on faith backed up by evidence from the small portion of knowledge that I do have. I also have faith that if I challenge and examine my beliefs, then they will stand up to scrutiny. Therefore I would love to hear from anyone who disagrees with me, to test my theory that my beliefs hold fast against criticism. I'd like to call this "open-minded faith".
For starters, there's one thing that's been on my mind that I'd like to hear more about:
Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
So according to the Bible, the existence of God should be evident from creation. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this, to see if they agree with it or not.
this entirely depends on your outlook of the universe. Time is a construct of man (in my opinion) and creation can only exist if there is a start of something which didnt exist before. If time doesnt exist in your mind than there would be no proof in Romans 1:20.
ReplyDeleteIf creation is used as an idea not as a statement of time then it could be interpreted as our existence and what is perceived around us is proof of god. You could also argue that the existence of everything proves god doesnt exist. its existence and the physical evidence showing its change over "time" shows that our existence as its known today came to be by changes in the world around us and to ourselves. if someone were to argue that gods influence is in everything and he made it happen then it would stand to argue that time doesnt exist. if time did exist and god were powerful enough to create everything then why would he modify his "grand" plan... unless he got it wrong, which would prove Romans 1:20 wrong based on the last line.
I am starting to ramble and loop upon myself. in the end i believe it comes down to a few simple beliefs. (and with every day my list will change, but today its:)
-do you take responsibility for your actions and your rewards or do you attribute them on a theoretical entity which by our minds cant be proven one way or the other. "the" question was created to exist that way. kinda like schrodingers cat.
-do you believe in time, if not is it more logic that everything existed or everything was created.
our minds try to make sense of the world around us and in that pursuit we create things to make the world logical(math, science, religion, etc.). I prefer to believe that there are answers which i wont know and which cant be understood because they dont fit in our current understanding of the world. Some believe that these unknowns are gods work. so do you attribute it to the unknown, god or both? I believe my exists is because of what happened "before" me, not because of "god".
if we move away from time and true intent and assume that god created everything and made it correctly the first time then we quickly come to other religions. i know this is covered all over the face of religion in other ways but hear me out...
if other religions exist but are false then they only exist to lead people astray. when i say religion i mean all religions, not just the "good" ones but even the ones that worship "satan" etc.
if god created other religions and god intended people to choose and see the way, then the proof wouldnt exist in the creation of the world because god intended for each of us to choose for ourselves in our own mind. not because there was a rock outside my house as proof god is real. if god intended us to make up our own mind and the rock outside of my house is proof left for me then the book of religion B is proof god doesnt exists also. someone could argue that book B is a fake created by man... "but it was created with the rock outside my house". if it was created with the same power as the rock outside my house then it was created by god along with the bible which makes all books pertaining to religion mute by conflict. but once again i am talking in loops, which is the root of the question which causes belief or disbelief. questions that go in loops forever. it always comes back to faith not proof. I have faith that schrodingers cat is alive in the box. I dont need proof because i last saw the cat alive, my mind attempts to make sense of the world by saying the cat is still alive.
man i hate cyclical arguments, they lead to so many problems.
(to give perspective slightly, my statements above is on modern religion. I believe religion 300+ years ago served a different purpose than it does today. it was a social distribution method of morals back then where today i dont think it serves that purpose as much. with that in mind my comments are based on my view of modern religion where its roll in teaching social morals doesnt need to exist for 90% of the worlds conscience).
I like this quote a lot.
ReplyDelete"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.
George Wald isn't a nobody, he's a well respected scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald
"this entirely depends on your outlook of the universe."
ReplyDeleteAbsolute truth (which is the foundation of this entire argument) does not change based on perspective. Gravity exists regardless of your personal views on the matter.
"Time is a construct of man (in my opinion) and creation can only exist if there is a start of something which didnt exist before."
I could easily point out how ridiculous this argument is, but the real point of the matter is that opinions are fantastic, but without some kind of evidential support, they don't belong in an intellectual debate. Thus, because your premise is false, all conclusions that you deduce from it are false.
"If creation is used as an idea not as a statement of time then it could be interpreted as our existence and what is perceived around us is proof of god."
I can't make out what you're trying to say at all. Creation is not an idea, it's an actual event in history. Included within Creation is the beginning of time (whenever that is in relation to when God created the heavens and the earth in six days). I'm not sure what you're trying to say about our existence though, but it is true that everything around us attests to God's existence.
"You could also argue that the existence of everything proves god doesnt exist."
You could argue it, but you can also argue that Patrick Swayze is actually a chocolate cake. It matters not what you could argue, it only matters what the evidence supports.
"its existence and the physical evidence showing its change over "time" shows that our existence as its known today came to be by changes in the world around us and to ourselves."
First of all, the beginning of your argument was a statement of belief that time is a construct of man, but now you're using time in your argument? Second, the fact that changes occur by no means refutes God's existence, but in fact points to it. The fact that the world can change (that trees can grow, that water floats upward and clouds rain down, that animals can reproduce, etc.) is an extraordinary thing, and it takes an extraordinary Creator to cause such a thing to happen.
"if someone were to argue that gods influence is in everything and he made it happen then it would stand to argue that time doesnt exist."
Just because God is sovereign, omnipresent and omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean that He's spend all His free time moving each individually leaf around the world. The wind is able to do that all on its own. Thinking that God is pulling the strings on every little thing is silly and fallacious.
"if time did exist and god were powerful enough to create everything then why would he modify his "grand" plan... unless he got it wrong, which would prove Romans 1:20 wrong based on the last line."
He didn't get it wrong, we got it wrong. God gave us free will and the ability to effect change. When we sinned, we brought death, destruction and entropy into the world. We are the ones that changed the world through our sin. God didn't get anything wrong, and He doesn't need to backpedal to get it patch things up.
"I am starting to ramble and loop upon myself. in the end i believe it comes down to a few simple beliefs."
What exactly are you saying comes down to a few simple beliefs? Being a good person? Going to heaven? Self-actualization?
"do you take responsibility for your actions and your rewards or do you attribute them on a theoretical entity which by our minds cant be proven one way or the other."
That's false. You have the proof, but you consciously choose to ignore it. Look at my quote by George Wald in the second comment. Paul rightly said that you are without excuse, because God's made it perfectly clear and not hidden it from you.
"do you believe in time, if not is it more logic that everything existed or everything was created."
ReplyDeleteYou speak of logic, but you failed to provide the logic underlying your conclusion or to point to even one individual in the scientific community who even partly agrees.
"our minds try to make sense of the world around us and in that pursuit we create things to make the world logical(math, science, religion, etc.)."
This is a terrible view of reality, to believe that these are totally man-made. If that were true, there would be mistakes in math, science, etc., inconsistencies, giant holes. Math is not a construction of man, it is simply our foray into the world of numbers. 1+1=2 was true before we discovered it, it's true no matter what symbols we ascribe to it, and it will forever continue to be true. "1" is a man-made label, yes, but the label points to the truth behind it. If I buy a box of Cheerios, I don't think that the box is my breakfast cereal, I understand that it's what the label refers to, what's inside the box, that are the Cheerios.
"Some believe that these unknowns are gods work."
There are some things which we will probably never know, because we simply don't have the capacity to understand them. I love God, but I'd be lying if I proclaimed to understand Him completely. I can't. I may never. The reason for not understanding other things is because it's not for us to know. Jesus said that even He didn't know when He would come back again, that only the Father knew. So there are certain things which we're not meant to know, so God keeps them hidden. And then other things we just haven't discovered yet, and others that are lost for random circumstances forever (details about ancient civilizations, for instance).
"if other religions exist but are false then they only exist to lead people astray. when i say religion i mean all religions, not just the "good" ones but even the ones that worship "satan" etc."
There are no "good" religions. There is Jesus and then there is Satan. You worship one or the other, with no third options. For instance, some people worship Allah (which technically means the word "god" and Muslims like to say that it doesn't specify their god but that he is the only god so just saying "god" in the generic sense refers to only him), and I believe there is a demon named Allah (so the god they worship, not that there is a demon named "god"). Some worship the sun, the moon, the stars, and I believe they are worshiping demons (I don't mean to say that the sun is a demon, of course, but that what they worship they call the sun, but is really a demon). So all religions besides those that believe that Jesus is Yahweh and died on the cross for the sins of the world worship demons and yes, are designed to lead people astray.
"if god created other religions and god intended people to choose and see the way, then the proof wouldnt exist in the creation of the world because god intended for each of us to choose for ourselves in our own mind."
Provide evidence of your premises. Where did you get that God created other religions, or that He intended that people believe in false religions? Your conclusion might be true, but only because it's based on false premises.
"if god intended us to make up our own mind and the rock outside of my house is proof left for me then the book of religion B is proof god doesnt exists also."
ReplyDeleteThe mere fact that a book about Religion B exists isn't proof of that religion. You have to investigate and test that book. The Bible is supported by some 14 thousand manuscripts, consistent throughout. It's supported by prophecies made thousands and hundreds of years before they have come to pass with 100% accuracy. Just because the Bible exists isn't proof of Jesus or Christianity.
"if it was created with the same power as the rock outside my house then it was created by god along with the bible which makes all books pertaining to religion mute by conflict."
This is silly. Once again you attribute everything to God, when God has clearly given us free will and the power to use it. God creates from nothing, and while we don't share that power, He has granted us the power to create from that which God has brought into existence from nothing. So God creates the matter (in this case paper, ink, etc.), and we put them together, organize them how we want. Books on religion are organized by man, with the Bible being the only one to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. God did not write the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.
"it always comes back to faith not proof."
That's a cop-out. Believing in Jesus and the Bible requires faith, yes, but not blind faith. It requires faith supported by mountains of irrefutable evidence, from the smallest particle to the entire universe, from the way that God provides for the sparrows and the consistency of the Bible.
"with that in mind my comments are based on my view of modern religion where its roll in teaching social morals doesnt need to exist for 90% of the worlds conscience."
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that basically 90% of people are morally good people. People are awful, and while we all have a basic moral compass, that's not enough (clearly--just watch the news for a minute). Beyond that, people need Jesus for more than setting their moral compass North. People need Jesus because He died on the cross, paying the price for our sins so we don't have to live in death and go to the conscious tormenting of hell for all eternity, but instead to be with God in paradise forever and ever. People need Jesus because we are lost without Him, because we need love, we need His mercy and grace. We need life, and the only way to truly have life is to be born again in Jesus.
sass
ReplyDeleteinteresting but what is your opinion on Johnathons original post not what is you opinion about my post. I dont believe from your post though that you disagree with Johnathons quoted section.
I find it amusing how many people I talk to have jumped on my argument of time not existing. asking for evidience or proof from the scientific community or groups of people who believe this also. but not a single one I talk to has attempted to research the idea or even think about it for themselves, asking themselves "is it possible". sass, can you provide proof time exists and not just the exchange of energy.
this is the same argument posed for the existence of god from some people. "show me the proof or someone i believe". its also possed this way in your comments
there is zero physical evidence that time exist and there are multiple scientific journals and groups which argue time doesnt exist as a philosophy of the universe. when reviewed there is more evidence saying time doesnt exist than time does.
time only exists as a true form in math forumals. time is the mathmatical equivalent of god. it can neither be proven or disproven and can easily be argued to exist and not exist.
I didnt post this to continue a conversation off topic from johnathons post but to reply to comment made about a well known theory being called rediculous.
I would love to read more peoples posts that argue johnathons post. Dave, the idea of spontanious life being disproven is knew to me and i thought had been proven time and again to be true. if you have any idea where you quote got their data i would love to search it out and read about it.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I don't get much opportunity to respond due to limited internet access, but I will be downloading the comments to give me time to read them over and formulate a response.
ReplyDeleteFirst poster, I read your comment all the way through, but I'm afraid it was over my head. I do appreciate the post, it helps remind me how far out of my depth I am, I've never even had an introductory philosophy course. I will read it over a few more times when I get the chance.
I don't mean to diminish your viewpoint, but my first impression of the idea that time doesn't exist is that it sounds like foolishness. There must be a very good argument for it in order to dismiss something that seems so obvious. I'll google for some more info on this when I get the chance.
I haven't had a chance to read all the way through the rest of the comments yet, but let's keep it on topic please. The topic of discussion for this thread is "Does creation show the existence of God". Also acceptable is anything else relating to the original post. I will make some more discussion threads for other issues so we can keep each thread more focussed.
Does creation itself prove the exsistence of God? I believe so, yes. How often have you witnessed nature, creation in all it's beauty and just been drawn to praise God? For those who do not believe in God, how can you see the vastness of the ocean, the sunsets, the stars, not to mention the incredable science behind it all, and just long to know why it's even out there? isn't there just something in your heart that begins to call out to that great "unknown"? I have had many conversations with unbelievers, professing athiests, or those who just think that "god" is whatever you want it to be for you, yet God's creation speaks to them and causes them to want to know more. Also, in speaking with believers, I have heard time and time again before they knew the "christianology" terms of being "saved" or a "believer", that in seeing God's creation they somehow (my belief is that through the holy spirit) came to an "understanding" or a knowledge that somehow, God is real and He is out there, but He also KNOWS ME.
ReplyDeleteThoughts, please? I never went to Bible school, this is just from personal experience and the Bible.
PS. What does the text say? God... has been CLEARLY made known through what has been made so that they are without excuse. If you believe that the Bible is God's word, inspired by Him, and is the only absolute truth, then you have to say yes, creation shows the exsistence of God simply because He says so.
your sis, Caroline
The George Wald quote cracks me up.
ReplyDelete1. George Wald may have been a brilliant scientist and a Nobel prize winner for neurobiology, but he was an expert on NEITHER abiogenesis NOR evolution.
2. He was just as susceptible to superstition as any other human, as you can find in his famous essay "The Origin of Death" which references the myth of lemming suicide and which you can easily find via Google. It's intriguing also, because it shows how far we've come in 40 years with our understanding of the evolutionary mechanism.
3. The commenter who cites the Wald quote from Scientific American (alleged quote, since I can't find the reference online other than a number of fundamentalist web sites rehashing it) trots out the tired logical fallacy of Argument from Authority, an old favorite among those with a religious bias. That being said, it takes a ridiculous lack of imagination (to say nothing of scientific integrity) to argue that there are exactly two choices in the matter of origin of life with nothing in between.
Look up "confirmation bias". Then re-evaluate the things you see around yourself as God-affirming. If you visit the remnants of a concentration camp in Poland, or watch a video of the tribal violence in Rwanda, or see children born with "Harlequin foetus" syndrome or anencephaly, you are also seeing the "majesty" of our world. Do they confirm your suppositions about a benevolent supernatural being? Or do you dismiss those facts of the world as being the work of some other agent that your god allows to operate for some unknown reason?
Quoting Epicurus, who you may know as the guy who likes food a lot:
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"
In response to the First Poster:
ReplyDeletecan you provide proof time exists and not just the exchange of energy.
I can try! Surely we are advancing towards the future at a rate of 60 seconds per minute. This is a testable and repeatable phenomenon, and easily observed by simply looking at a clock. It seems so basic as to be axiomatic.
... creation can only exist if there is a start of something which didnt exist before. If time doesnt exist in your mind than there would be no proof in Romans 1:20.
But wouldn't this argument imply that there can be no events whatsoever? If I move a rock from point A to point B, that means point B was empty before the event and occupied after the event. But if time doesn't exist, then there is no “before the event”. Since I can clearly move a rock from point A to point B, I conclude that the argument is invalid.
If creation is used as an idea not as a statement of time then it could be interpreted as our existence and what is perceived around us is proof of god.
I think that this is the proper interpretation of the phrase "being understood through what has been made". Plus, I found another verse that applies and supports this interpretation:
Psalm 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
I admit I don't follow your argument that the existence of everything proves God doesn't exist. Your statement that God would not want to modify His grand plan seems to assume that His goal is to create a static state of perfection, like a perfect painting. But what if His goal is to create something dynamic, more like a movie?
do you take responsibility for your actions and your rewards or do you attribute them on a theoretical entity which by our minds cant be proven one way or the other.
Is this a statement on free will versus predestination? I may be reading it wrong, but you seem to be saying that the existence of God precludes free will, which I don't agree with.
I'll attempt to paraphrase your next argument: if God is responsible for the existence of a rock, then God is also responsible for the existence of other religions. This proves God doesn't exist, because it wouldn't be fair to create multiple religions and expect us to choose one.
The issue I take with this argument is that it doesn't disprove the existence of God per se, it merely disproves the existence of a God who conforms to a certain standard of justice or fair play. And where does this standard of justice come from? If you admit the existence of an absolute moral standard, it opens up a whole new area of argument for the existence of God.
But I think we are jumping the gun by bringing justice and morality into the equation. It is true that ultimately I am interested in whether or not the God of the Bible exists, but the Bible has a lot to say about the nature of God, and I do not yet feel ready to tackle the issue of whether or not God is actually just. For the moment, I'd like to stick to Romans 1:20, which merely claims that "His eternal power and divine nature" have been clearly seen. I take this to mean that God existed forever, had the power to create the universe, and is supernatural. This verse does not claim that creation shows that God is just or conforms to some moral standard.