I think you're going about this the wrong way. All the books you're reading and all the books recommended address issues at different levels of faith. Each book addresses a specific audience with the assumption of a basic acceptance of facts. I think if you ask specific questions we can talk about it and try to help you as well as giving the opportunity for all of us to learn.
I also think you might be overwhelming yourself with multiple questions and doubts all at once. It makes no sense to have multiple questions about God, God's providence, God's relationship with man, God and science all at once if you are not sure the gospel accounts are accurate. Most of us and most books will use the gospel accounts as basic evidence. Let's start at the most fundamental level. If you are not convinced of the answer, it doesn't make sense to move on and tackle another problem.
The only question in mind is where do you want to start? Shall we discuss proving God's existence, or shall we discuss science vs. scripture? Your call.
This makes sense. And you've hit on my two chief issues, under which all the other issues can be categorized. Hmm.....it seems to me that a discussion of proving God's existence should logically come first. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do science vs. scripture first if we are unsure of the existence of the God that the scripture is about in the first place. What do you think?
Also, can we add "the reliability of the Gospel accounts" as a third option? Or does that fall under "proving God's existence?"
Caji, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. Your response makes sense to someone who accepts scripture. Logically, it is irrelevant at best. K-man and others like him are not going to find the answers to their doubts only from the Bible.
Let me explain it this way, you said
[quote author=caji link=topic=13328.msg155870#msg155870 date=1337718956] You will never understand God or His Creation unless you read what He has given you, with an open mind.
What if the Trinity gave you a prophet (say Jeremiah) who wrote "Islam is truth". Would you agree with this statement? If you say no, then I will say "You didn't read the Bible with an open mind." If you say yes, then I will say "You are neither Christian or Muslim". Where does that leave you?
The fact is directing you to the Bible doesn't answer the question. It only puts you, the seeker, on a rational, scientific journey to prove or disprove this statement from the Bible. (Of course, this is the absolute wrong way to read the Bible) And if the seeker can't find the answer, depression and doubt overwhelms him. The next typical answer is "Pray and you'll find the answer". Yes that's true. But now I am asking the seeker to go on a "spiritual" journey that he can not conceptualize because he is looking for logical, rational answers. In addition, saying "pray and you'll find the answer" doesn't guarantee an answer. (A non-guaranteed answer is an illogical response to an immediate question) In other words, he still doesn't have an answer on whether or not "Islam is truth". It is beneficial for everyone to find rational, scientific evidence that Islam is not the truth first. This starts us all on a journey that everyone has conceptualized. We are all starting on the same page. It will most definitely lead to the Bible and prayer. But it can't be the other way around.
To prove this point, look at 1 Corinthians 15:46, "The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual." The same applies to faith. You are not born hoping for the resurrection of the dead. You are not born accepting things not seen. It first takes rational, logical thought - natural human development - to accept faith as St Paul defined in Hebrews 11:1.
Of course, I would not quote the Bible to the seeker. I would "always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is me". That answer usually requires me to start with science and logic. I should have a repertoire of logical answers in addition to Biblical verses and spiritual evidence.
I hope I didn't offend anyone. It's just that in this age, we need to learn from apologetics like St Athanasius, St Cyril I, and others who proved the Trinitarian faith from material inside and outside of the gospels.
This is exactly what I wanted to say, but you said it about a bazillion times better. Thank you.
I think that fact that you actually came here and asked with a very open mind, replying to every answer with humility and respect, tell us a lot about your personality and that fact that you are seeking God, not a debate.
Just so you know, my knowledge level compared to the rest of the members on here is almost non-existent, but I have one comment regarding one of your questions. You asked about the flood. Graham Hancock in his book Fingerprints of the Gods went about this issue in way I have never seen before. He used myth and archaeological evidence to conclude (He is as unbiased as it gets.) that there is common elements in different cultures that can not be an accident. One of those elements is a common flood "myth" in all of those culture. If you have time, I think this book is worth it.
If anything, this book opened my eyes to how much we do not know. Have you ever questioned science before? <<< As illogical as it gets, did you ever ask yourself that maybe the stuff that science believes is false. A poor example is the Ptolemy system (Geocentric universe); 800 years ago almost everybody, including science, believed in a geocentric universe. What if we are doing this now? and 800 years from now some two random people would be discussing how stupid evolution is (just an example)?
I can send you my book that deals directly with this topic, I use evidence, logic, and reason to demonstrate that it IS true. Using, not only Christian sources, but a host of non-Christian sources to reasonably and logically conclude that not only did Christ exist, but it is more probable that He IS God.
If interested send me a PM here and I will send you my book.
[quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13328.msg155894#msg155894 date=1337743942] Welcome to the site!
I think that fact that you actually came here and asked with a very open mind, replying to every answer with humility and respect, tell us a lot about your personality and that fact that you are seeking God, not a debate.
Just so you know, my knowledge level compared to the rest of the members on here is almost non-existent, but I have one comment regarding one of your questions. You asked about the flood. Graham Han**** in his book Fingerprints of the Gods went about this issue in way I have never seen before. He used myth and archaeological evidence to conclude (He is as unbiased as it gets.) that there is common elements in different cultures that can not be an accident. One of those elements is a common flood "myth" in all of those culture. If you have time, I think this book is worth it.
I'll take a look at Han****'s book. This isn't the first time I've heard this pointed out btw, and it presents its own problems. How do we know which of these stories is the original, and which are just rehashed versions? My understanding is that some flood stories actually predate the time of the Noah story, which, if true, makes it more likely that the Noah story is just a copy of an earlier flood myth. Does he address this in his book?
If anything, this book opened my eyes to how much we do not know. Have you ever questioned science before? <<< As illogical as it gets, did you ever ask yourself that maybe the stuff that science believes is false. A poor example is the Ptolemy system (Geocentric universe); 800 years ago almost everybody, including science, believed in a geocentric universe. What if we are doing this now? and 800 years from now some two random people would be discussing how stupid evolution is (just an example)?
I question science all the time. It wouldn't make sense not to. It's how progress is made.
Even in school, we were exposed to the peer review process, and were taught how to analyze and pick apart scientific articles. The process of questioning is absolutely fundamental to science.
(btw, it's not just science, I question everything. It's part of who I am.)
Science is historically closed minded. When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors wash their hands after performing autopsies and then delivering babies, he was ridiculed into an insane asylum. That is one simple example, another is the opposition Darwin faced. Any new idea that challenges the status quo is rejected, regardless if it is wrong or right. Scientists like to say that science is so open minded and that is how progress is made, yet they seem hesitant to ever put that talk into action. It reminds me of islam, "we are a religion of peace" *explosion* "No seriously we are".
You have to question science because the scientists think they have a monopoly on the interpretation of evidence. Geologists will say "Each layer of earth is a time period". Really? Prove it. Well, the fact is, it is an interpretation OF the data, not an actual fact. There is, quite literally, no reliable or accurate method of dating in existence today. This idea that each layer is a time period was developed by Charles Lyell and this is taught to us as fact, and we do not question it. However, it is not fact, it is an interpretation that has become sort of a mantra. We do not know the age of the earth, it could be billions or trillions and perhaps it could be thousands, who knows! Not us!
The problem is that scientists now approach things with a preconceived notion that evolution, darwinian evolution in particular, is a proven fact. Then they criticize Christians for doing this same thing, as if we are not allowed to, only darwinian evolutionists can. Science proves nothing except that man is flawed and biased. (in terms of if Christianity is true or not)
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=13328.msg155899#msg155899 date=1337749089] Science is historically closed minded. When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors wash their hands after performing autopsies and then delivering babies, he was ridiculed into an insane asylum. That is one simple example, another is the opposition Darwin faced. Any new idea that challenges the status quo is rejected, regardless if it is wrong or right. Scientists like to say that science is so open minded and that is how progress is made, yet they seem hesitant to ever put that talk into action. It reminds me of islam, "we are a religion of peace" *explosion* "No seriously we are".
Fair enough, but this isn't how I was taught to conduct myself in a scientific setting. I can only speak for myself.
You have to question science because the scientists think they have a monopoly on the interpretation of evidence. Geologists will say "Each layer of earth is a time period". Really? Prove it. Well, the fact is, it is an interpretation OF the data, not an actual fact. There is, quite literally, no reliable or accurate method of dating in existence today. This idea that each layer is a time period was developed by Charles Lyell and this is taught to us as fact, and we do not question it. However, it is not fact, it is an interpretation that has become sort of a mantra. We do not know the age of the earth, it could be billions or trillions and perhaps it could be thousands, who knows! Not us!
What about radiometric dating?
And I have to completely disagree with your assertion regarding Lyell. That almost makes it sound as if no progress has been made in the field, and this is not the case at all. I've actually never known it to be the case that once one guy says something, and all of the other scientists unquestioningly accept it. The existence of the peer review process and your own example of Darwin's opposition support this as well.
I can actually take the Darwin example further: We know, and openly admit, that he got some of his facts wrong, but that in no way invalidates his main argument, which has been strengthened by over 100 years of observation and data.
The problem is that scientists now approach things with a preconceived notion that evolution, darwinian evolution in particular, is a proven fact. Then they criticize Christians for doing this same thing, as if we are not allowed to, only darwinian evolutionists can. Science proves nothing except that man is flawed and biased. (in terms of if Christianity is true or not)
Evolution has tons of supporting evidence though, from different sources of inquiry, using different methodologies. We can use it to make predictions that we can experimentally confirm or disconfirm. Christianity (and other religions) simply have books, all of which contradict each other, and which are not evidence-based, and in some cases contradict the evidence we do have. (feel free to disagree with me on that last point, I'm, sure it will be addressed on this thread). That, I think, is the scientists' main issue with it,and at this point it is my main issue as well. Though I do agree that man is unfortunately flawed and biased.
Evolution has plenty of evidence, as I stated in my previous post, it depends on how it is interpreted. From other sources of inquiry? Those other sources ALSO predetermined that evolution is true, so they are not even questioning if the evidence is evidence for evolution or not, the already predetermined it was before it was even found.
Had you studied Christianity as much as you have science, I am positive you would not say something as absurd as "it just has books" which are "not evidence based". It is as silly as posting "Complete Loss of Faith". The fact that you even posted that suggests that either you do not have a complete loss of faith or you are looking for a fight.
As I said concerning dating methods, there are, by scientists own admission, no accurate or reliable method of dating.
What progress has been made in geology? Most scientists reply "we can predict that we will find certain fossils in certain layers thereby proving evolution. The method of determining this is circular reasoning, how do we know what layer the fossil is in is exactly how we determine the age of the fossil. So, if you find a trilobite, then you are in the Cambrian/Pre-cambrian, how do you know it is that time period? Because you found that fossil there. So it proves absolutely nothing. Especially since there is a growing number of scientists that believe in punctuated equilibrium to explain the sudden appearance of complex fossils with no antecendants.
Geologists also state that erosion happens over long periods of time, yet, erosion can happen in a short period of time given, say, enough water. Fact is, the geologic column is not evidence for evolution and geology certainly is not proof.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=13328.msg155901#msg155901 date=1337751673] Evolution has plenty of evidence, as I stated in my previous post, it depends on how it is interpreted. From other sources of inquiry? Those other sources ALSO predetermined that evolution is true, so they are not even questioning if the evidence is evidence for evolution or not, the already predetermined it was before it was even found.
I must respectfully disagree here. The whole point of doing the experiments in the first place is that the outcome is not predetermined. If evolution is false, the experiments or evidence should easily show this. Likewise, if it's true, the experiments should support it.
Had you studied Christianity as much as you have science, I am positive you would not say something as absurd as "it just has books" which are "not evidence based". It is as silly as posting "Complete Loss of Faith". The fact that you even posted that suggests that either you do not have a complete loss of faith or you are looking for a fight.
I promise that a fight is the last thing I want.
I have studied it. Like I said earlier, I grew up in the church, and I have done tons of reading since this ordeal started, especially on its history, and on the Bible itself. All of that has led me to that conclusion. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but as of now this is the only conclusion I can draw with the information I currently have.
I consider my posting in here to be just wishful thinking at this point. Meaning, I no longer seriously think He exists, but I really want someone to prove me wrong, because I hate the sense of loss I now have. I grew up thinking I was never alone, and now I've come to the conclusion that the opposite is true, that maybe I was always alone and just didn't know it. I hate it.
As I said concerning dating methods, there are, by scientists own admission, no accurate or reliable method of dating.
Can you cite this info? I've never heard this before.
If you mean "there is no method of dating that is 100% accurate with no margin of error" then I completely agree with you. But that doesn't just mean we toss our methods out the window. A margin of error doesn't make the entire measurement automatically wrong. If I tell you I'm four and a half years old, but I'm actually four years and 3 months, that doesn't mean that we can't determine my actual age, or that saying four and a half years is somehow totally wrong. Does that make sense?
What progress has been made in geology? Most scientists reply "we can predict that we will find certain fossils in certain layers thereby proving evolution. The method of determining this is circular reasoning, how do we know what layer the fossil is in is exactly how we determine the age of the fossil. So, if you find a trilobite, then you are in the Cambrian/Pre-cambrian, how do you know it is that time period? Because you found that fossil there. So it proves absolutely nothing. Especially since there is a growing number of scientists that believe in punctuated equilibrium to explain the sudden appearance of complex fossils with no antecendants.
That's not how they do it though......and again, radiometric dating. Also, fossils are actually not the strongest evidence we have of evolution. If that was all we had, I'd be on your side regarding this issue.
Geologists also state that erosion happens over long periods of time, yet, erosion can happen in a short period of time given, say, enough water. Fact is, the geologic column is not evidence for evolution and geology certainly is not proof.
By geologic column, do you mean the fossil record? The fossil record shows gradual change over time, which is exactly what we would expect to observe if evolution were the case, but not what we would expect for a 6 day creation (there would instead be no pattern to the layers). But as I stated earlier, the fossil record is just a piece of the puzzle, and not even a big piece at that. There are homologies in DNA sequences, in protein sequences, in anatomy, in development. There is also distribution of species to consider. Elaborating on this stuff could fill volumes, but my point is there is more than just fossils to look at.
We have also actually observed it in the lab. Drosophila that were reared in an environment without light for several generations gradually lost the ability to see. Bacteria raised in culture evolved an entirely new enzyme for digesting citrate, which they did not have at the time the experiment started. (There are also bacteria that evolved new, significantly different enzymes to digest byproducts of nylon, which wasn't even invented till the 1930s).
You can still totally feel free to not accept evolution. I'm not looking to get into an all out debate on it. But after studying this stuff for the past four years, I find it to make total sense, be very well-supported, and is the best explanation we have for many observations in biology. Btw, I apologize if I'm coming off as argumentative, that's not what I'm going for at all. It's 2 am here and I'm sure some of this isn't coming out clearly.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13328.msg155902#msg155902 date=1337752968] Wow, if you write out the word han****, it automatically turns it into stars.
Our God has created a mature universe. Therefore he has created the history of the universe at the same time. This does not mean that the universe is objectively old, or that he did not create Adam and Eve as we are taught.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a river valley, for instance, without also creating the history of that river valley. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for it to be otherwise. It is impossible to create the stars in the sky without creating the history of millions of years of travel of photons. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create even a tree without also creating the history of that tree, to create the mulch that lies on the floor of the created forest without creating the history of that mulch.
Scientists are entirely unable to say whether God created the world 10,000 years ago as a mature system, or kicked it off in a big bang.
Let posters be rather hesitant in speaking of God's creative will as a 'whimsical decree'. The creation of the world is at the very centre of God's will for all things and there is nothing about God which is whimsical. The connection between the Word of God and the working out of his will in Creation is not accidental. When he speaks it is the very Word of God who acts.
I think your problems stem from not having a personal relationship with God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter proceeds the Father and teaches us all we need to know. I find that many of us are like the Saducees and Pharisees performing all the rituals, but not knowing God; so that when He comes to us face to face....we do not recognize Him.....crucify Him even. We become like the "sounding brass" the prophets spoke of. Like Church cymbals played without rythmn; just noise. St. Antony the Father of Monastacism speaks of 'intellect' and how worthless it is if it shows us there is no God. God created all. God gives us knowledge and we use it to disprove His existence. I have yet to see a doctor heal his patient through prayer. Making the lame walk without poking or prodding or experimenting on.......just heal for heavens sake. Make the blind see, just by faith. Now if a man could figure that out then I would call him a true intellect. All the rest is just empty noise. K-man you should read H. H. Pope Shenouda III's books. The one on Diabolical wars could be of great interest to you. Read the books of the holy orthodox fathers.....first seek ye the kingdom of heaven then all things will follow after. Don't lose your great reward, your beautiful crown
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155907#msg155907 date=1337755321] Our God has created a mature universe. Therefore he has created the history of the universe at the same time. This does not mean that the universe is objectively old, or that he did not create Adam and Eve as we are taught.
How do we know that though?
It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a river valley, for instance, without also creating the history of that river valley. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for it to be otherwise. It is impossible to create the stars in the sky without creating the history of millions of years of travel of photons. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create even a tree without also creating the history of that tree, to create the mulch that lies on the floor of the created forest without creating the history of that mulch.
But things change over time, and the universe is not frozen. The river valley had to start to exist at some point in time, wouldn't it? So if we time travelled (for the sake of argument) to right before it started, we would actually be able to observe it starting. Or are you saying this is not the case?
I'm also confused about your point regarding stars. If they only began to exist <10000 years ago (in absolute terms), then there is no reason that photons from stars that are more than 10000 light years away should be visible from earth. The only way I see that as being possible, is if the stars and the photons in the intervening space between them and earth were created simultaneously. But that sounds kind of deceptive (forgive my use of the word, but I see no way around it).
Scientists are entirely unable to say whether God created the world 10,000 years ago as a mature system, or kicked it off in a big bang.
I agree with this. There is no way to prove or disprove it. It's unfalsifiable.
But I also still don't fully understand. If the universe was <10000 years old (in absolute terms), why is it not also that age in apparent terms? I don't see it as being impossible to create a universe with both an apparent and an absolute age that are the same. Tree rings, the rate of decay of certain isotopes, fossils, cosmic microwave background radiation, the expansion of the universe. All of these suggest an age, and this is what makes it hard for a lot of people (myself included) to adopt a young-creation point of view. Why the deception? Could He not have left these things out or tweaked them in such a way as to suggest a <10000 year universe?
I think your problems stem from not having a personal relationship with God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter proceeds the Father and teaches us all we need to know.
I'm sure this is accurate. But how can I develop a personal relationship with someone I'm not sure exists? How do I know it won't be all in my head? That's why I'm taking this approach.
God created all. God gives us knowledge and we use it to disprove His existence.
How do we know that though? Therein lies my issue.
I have yet to see a doctor heal his patient through prayer.
I don't understand....isn't that where science comes in?
K-man you should read H. H. Pope Shenouda III's books. The one on Diabolical wars could be of great interest to you. Read the books of the holy orthodox fathers.....first seek ye the kingdom of heaven then all things will follow after. Don't lose your great reward, your beautiful crown
Thanks. I've actually read (and own) several of his books, including that one. But I should look into the fathers more.
[quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg155897#msg155897 date=1337748411] [quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13328.msg155894#msg155894 date=1337743942] Welcome to the site!
I think that fact that you actually came here and asked with a very open mind, replying to every answer with humility and respect, tell us a lot about your personality and that fact that you are seeking God, not a debate.
Just so you know, my knowledge level compared to the rest of the members on here is almost non-existent, but I have one comment regarding one of your questions. You asked about the flood. Graham Han**** in his book Fingerprints of the Gods went about this issue in way I have never seen before. He used myth and archaeological evidence to conclude (He is as unbiased as it gets.) that there is common elements in different cultures that can not be an accident. One of those elements is a common flood "myth" in all of those culture. If you have time, I think this book is worth it.
I'll take a look at Han****'s book. This isn't the first time I've heard this pointed out btw, and it presents its own problems. How do we know which of these stories is the original, and which are just rehashed versions? My understanding is that some flood stories actually predate the time of the Noah story, which, if true, makes it more likely that the Noah story is just a copy of an earlier flood myth. Does he address this in his book?
He does, but does not. He is trying so hard to be an biased that he does not compare the evidence with the bible as much. You would have to do your own research on this.
[quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg155897#msg155897 date=1337748411] [quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13328.msg155894#msg155894 date=1337743942] If anything, this book opened my eyes to how much we do not know. Have you ever questioned science before? <<< As illogical as it gets, did you ever ask yourself that maybe the stuff that science believes is false. A poor example is the Ptolemy system (Geocentric universe); 800 years ago almost everybody, including science, believed in a geocentric universe. What if we are doing this now? and 800 years from now some two random people would be discussing how stupid evolution is (just an example)?
I question science all the time. It wouldn't make sense not to. It's how progress is made.
Even in school, we were exposed to the peer review process, and were taught how to analyze and pick apart scientific articles. The process of questioning is absolutely fundamental to science.
(btw, it's not just science, I question everything. It's part of who I am.)
edit: we got filtered, really??
By questioning science, I did not mean the "questioning" we do at school. Back to the geocentric example, Brahe was a great scientist and he had one of the greatest astronomical libraries in his time, yet he still believe in a geocentric universe. Kepler came after him and used the same library and concluded that it is a heliocentric universe with elliptical orbits. You see my point? Two people with the same data can conclude two different things and the both believed that they are right...
He does, but does not. He is trying so hard to be an biased that he does not compare the evidence with the bible as much. You would have to do your own research on this.
Ah, I see.
By questioning science, I did not mean the "questioning" we do at school. Back to the geocentric example, Brahe was a great scientist and he had one of the greatest astronomical libraries in his time, yet he still believe in a geocentric universe. Kepler came after him and used the same library and concluded that it is a heliocentric universe with elliptical orbits. You see my point? Two people with the same data can conclude two different things and the both believed that they are right...
I'm not sure I follow here. Can you differentiate between this questioning and the questioning we do at school?
(Also, Kepler used his own observations and calculations to arrive at his conclusions (meaning, although they shared data, new data had to be added before Kepler could draw the conclusions he did). Brahe's library was a starting point for his theories, not the entire foundation. At least, that's my understanding of it.)
He does, but does not. He is trying so hard to be an biased that he does not compare the evidence with the bible as much. You would have to do your own research on this.
Ah, I see.
By questioning science, I did not mean the "questioning" we do at school. Back to the geocentric example, Brahe was a great scientist and he had one of the greatest astronomical libraries in his time, yet he still believe in a geocentric universe. Kepler came after him and used the same library and concluded that it is a heliocentric universe with elliptical orbits. You see my point? Two people with the same data can conclude two different things and the both believed that they are right...
I'm not sure I follow here. Can you differentiate between this questioning and the questioning we do at school?
(Also, Kepler used his own observations and calculations to arrive at his conclusions (meaning, although they shared data, new data had to be added before Kepler could draw the conclusions he did). Brahe's library was a starting point for his theories, not the entire foundation. At least, that's my understanding of it.)
When we test a theory at school, we test it the same ways that this theory work. What if we need to look at it from a completely different angle to find that it is wrong? At school, your testings are almost always biased.
My point is, from the example and all, how do you know a theory that we build on is not completely wrong? People believed in a geocentric universe and built many theories on it, yet it was wrong. They all observed the same thing that Copernicus observed, yet the observed a geocentric universe. You see my point?
All what I am saying is: Science is biased and close minded. We can not trust it, nor it is illusions of theory testing.
Take your doubt as the greatest evidence of God's existence.
Your very notion of God, when you doubt, is sufficient proof of His existence. You cannot have the concept of 'God' or 'infinite', etc., without God existing. Where would you get it from? You have nothing in the universe that could give you these concepts. God placed some knowledge of Himself in our hearts so that we may return to Him.
Your very existence depends on God. He is our life. What gives life to the world? What gives life to man? It is His breath that formed us. How else could we have come into existence, when we were not?
The rationalist approach you are taking to learning about God may be a vicious cycle that never leads to answers. I read an account of St. Andrew the Apostle's martyrdom in which I learned a great lesson.
As St. Andrew was preaching to the roman governor (?) he was telling him about the Eucharist. The governor obviously thought it was nonsense, how can you eat someone and he still live eternally?! St. Andrew repeatedly told him that he must believe to understand and that if he did not believe he would never understand. This is how the apostles preached. This is how God reveals Himself to us. When we show faith, we are rewarded.
I can already anticipate the worries you have in doing this. Perhaps you think that you will feel a false sense of spirituality and never be sure of God's existence.
All we can do is tell God that we believe and ask Him to help our unbelief.
I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM, Rational=logical The Logos=logical The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
When we test a theory at school, we test it the same ways that this theory work. What if we need to look at it from a completely different angle to find that it is wrong? At school, your testings are almost always biased.
Ah, I think I understand what you're saying now.
This might be true in chem lab or physics lab, where the goal is to teach you how a specific principle works. But that is by no means how it's done in the real world. I've been working in a lab and going to scientific conferences for over two years now, and it's completely different than how it's taught in school. The goal in those labs is to teach you some principle that has already been verified through rigorous experimentation (acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, for example). The basic goal in a professional lab is to come up with a model for your observations, and try to disprove it. You shouldn't assume that the two are the same. Does that make sense?
My point is, from the example and all, how do you know a theory that we build on is not completely wrong? People believed in a geocentric universe and built many theories on it, yet it was wrong. They all observed the same thing that Copernicus observed, yet the observed a geocentric universe. You see my point?
I see what you're saying, but we can't look at one or two examples and then assume all of science is somehow flawed or totally off base. We know a theory works if it is supported by repeated observation and experimentation.
And please don't misunderstand, but maybe geocentrism isn't the best example to use for this. People believed in a geocentric universe because they thought that it was supported by Scripture, not because of the observations. It's the same reason Galileo was put under house arrest - his support of heliocentrism was viewed as an attack on the church (though it obviously wasn't). The observations weren't the primary motivation in this situation.
All what I am saying is: Science is biased and close minded. We can not trust it, nor it is illusions of theory testing.
Based on my education and firsthand experience, I must respectfully disagree. Although I agree that science is not perfect, I think is the best tool we have, and it works more often than it doesn't.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=13328.msg155930#msg155930 date=1337805460] wow, nice answers and questions in this thread. have to go and do some more work but will pray for u all. God bless yr journeys. :)
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg155932#msg155932 date=1337807556] I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM, Rational=logical The Logos=logical The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
Oh my goodness, thank you! Take all the time you need.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg155932#msg155932 date=1337807556] I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM, Rational=logical The Logos=logical The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
There is plenty of reasonable evidence to show that Christ existed and that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. The Chuch was filled with people who had seen and known Christ. But I know of no person who has been convinced into faith. Faith should be reasonable, but God is beyond investigation, and to begin by proving God seems to me to be starting on the wrong road.
Blind Bartimaeus had it right. He neither saw Christ, nor knew him. But he cried out, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. This is always the cry of the one seeking God.
I have a lifetime of reasonable experience that supports my faith, but my faith is a living trust in the God who is here with me always. I do not have faith because someone has proved to me that God exists, but because I have met him.
The people of Samaria were drawn to hope in Christ because of the testimony of the woman's experience of Christ. But when they met him for themselves they said...
Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
If a person does not meet Christ for themselves they cannot have faith, because faith is trust in a person, not accepting certain facts. They must have a sense of need and even a fragile hope. The journey of faith is not unreasonable but it is not intellectual. If a person has no need and no hope they will not easily find Christ.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13328.msg155928#msg155928 date=1337802733] Take your doubt as the greatest evidence of God's existence.
Your very notion of God, when you doubt, is sufficient proof of His existence. You cannot have the concept of 'God' or 'infinite', etc., without God existing. Where would you get it from? You have nothing in the universe that could give you these concepts. God placed some knowledge of Himself in our hearts so that we may return to Him.
I must respectfully disagree. The concept of infinity is all over the place in mathematics. I don't see the necessity for God to exist in order for us to be able to think of infinity.
I also have concepts of the gods of other religions (Zeus, Thor, Allah, Krishna, etc.), but that doesn't have any bearing on their existence.
Your very existence depends on God. He is our life. What gives life to the world? What gives life to man? It is His breath that formed us. How else could we have come into existence, when we were not?
If this question is asking "how did humans come to be?", science gives us an answer already that I find satisfactory. If your underlying question is "why is there something rather than nothing?", I don't have an answer. I struggle with this same question.
The rationalist approach you are taking to learning about God may be a vicious cycle that never leads to answers.
That's what I'm afraid of, but I'm going to wait and see.
As St. Andrew was preaching to the roman governor (?) he was telling him about the Eucharist. The governor obviously thought it was nonsense, how can you eat someone and he still live eternally?! St. Andrew repeatedly told him that he must believe to understand and that if he did not believe he would never understand. This is how the apostles preached. This is how God reveals Himself to us. When we show faith, we are rewarded.
Isn't this going in a circle though? I have to believe to understand, but I need the understanding to believe? I don't think I can bring myself to do that. For me, the understanding has to come first. Otherwise, how can I say I believe it?
I can already anticipate the worries you have in doing this. Perhaps you think that you will feel a false sense of spirituality and never be sure of God's existence.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
All we can do is tell God that we believe and ask Him to help our unbelief.
I'm trying, but the lack of a response is unsettling.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155938#msg155938 date=1337808680] There is plenty of reasonable evidence to show that Christ existed and that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
I agree with the first part of this, but disagree with the second. My understanding is that the majority of current scholarship does not consider the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts, and has held this view for some time. That doesn't automatically make them right, of course, but as of now I find them convincing. This is not to suggest I'm not willing to be persuaded otherwise.
But I know of no person who has been convinced into faith. Faith should be reasonable, but God is beyond investigation, and to begin by proving God seems to me to be starting on the wrong road. Blind Bartimaeus had it right. He neither saw Christ, nor knew him. But he cried out, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. This is always the cry of the one seeking God.
Hmm....How would you recommend one go about it? If we can't deduce His existence in some compelling way, how would I come to believe it?
I have a lifetime of reasonable experience that supports my faith, but my faith is a living trust in the God who is here with me always. I do not have faith because someone has proved to me that God exists, but because I have met him.
A few years ago this was exactly how I felt as well. But, as I currently have no way of differentiating between genuine experience and the whole thing being in my head, and since I also currently do not have even a basis for assuming it to be genuine experience, I'm forced to take the view that the whole thing was in my head. I really want to be proven wrong here especially.
The people of Samaria were drawn to hope in Christ because of the testimony of the woman's experience of Christ. But when they met him for themselves they said...
Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
But....Isn't this an example of someone being convinced into the faith? They wouldn't just take her word for it till they saw it for themselves and found it convincing.
If a person does not meet Christ for themselves they cannot have faith, because faith is trust in a person, not accepting certain facts. They must have a sense of need and even a fragile hope. The journey of faith is not unreasonable but it is not intellectual. If a person has no need and no hope they will not easily find Christ.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg155932#msg155932 date=1337807556] I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM, Rational=logical The Logos=logical The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
No one said it is the only way. It is the best way. It is the stable way. Faith shouldn't be founded on your own reasoning abilities. What of those who are incapable of understanding the reasons for God's existence? What of little children? Should we try to explain to 2nd graders how the flood was possible, that evolution is bogus, etc.? Certainly not. If our faith is based on reasoning, then it comes from us. And if our faith comes from us, it is weak.
Logic and reasoning just confirms what we already know and believe.
Try to think about the many miracles that have happened in our time for example the Virgin Mary appearing in Egypt this can not be explained by science. Also every year in Jerusalem out of the tomb of Jesus on the resurrection the fire that doesn’t burn for 33 minutes. Christ lived for 33 years. Also the fact that the fire that doesn’t burn is tried to be explained by scientist yet they found no answer. If science can’t explain the non burning fire that is in present day and we can observe it. Then we are for sure not going to be able explain the making of the universe which we have not witnessed so we turn to the bible for this answer because of these great wonders god opens our hearts to believe in him. :)
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13328.msg155944#msg155944 date=1337814634] Try to think about the many miracles that have happened in our time for example the Virgin Mary appearing in Egypt this can not be explained by science.
This is something I often think about. I've seen videos, and as of now I have no alternative explanation for this (though the videos I've seen weren't very good quality). For something like this, I feel like I'd have to see it for myself in person before I'd be able to make a decision.
Also every year in Jerusalem out of the tomb of Jesus on the resurrection the fire that doesn’t burn for 33 minutes. Christ lived for 33 years. Also the fact that the fire that doesn’t burn is tried to be explained by scientist yet they found no answer. If science can’t explain the non burning fire that is in present day and we can observe it.
I've looked at several (decent quality) videos of this, and from what I was able to tell, it doesn't appear any different than normal fire. Have you seen this for yourself?
Also, miracles have been reported in other religions. That alone makes it difficult to pick one on the basis of miracles alone.
Comments
K-man,
I think you're going about this the wrong way. All the books you're reading and all the books recommended address issues at different levels of faith. Each book addresses a specific audience with the assumption of a basic acceptance of facts. I think if you ask specific questions we can talk about it and try to help you as well as giving the opportunity for all of us to learn.
I also think you might be overwhelming yourself with multiple questions and doubts all at once. It makes no sense to have multiple questions about God, God's providence, God's relationship with man, God and science all at once if you are not sure the gospel accounts are accurate. Most of us and most books will use the gospel accounts as basic evidence. Let's start at the most fundamental level. If you are not convinced of the answer, it doesn't make sense to move on and tackle another problem.
The only question in mind is where do you want to start? Shall we discuss proving God's existence, or shall we discuss science vs. scripture? Your call.
This makes sense. And you've hit on my two chief issues, under which all the other issues can be categorized. Hmm.....it seems to me that a discussion of proving God's existence should logically come first. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do science vs. scripture first if we are unsure of the existence of the God that the scripture is about in the first place. What do you think?
Also, can we add "the reliability of the Gospel accounts" as a third option? Or does that fall under "proving God's existence?" What if the Trinity gave you a prophet (say Jeremiah) who wrote "Islam is truth". Would you agree with this statement? If you say no, then I will say "You didn't read the Bible with an open mind." If you say yes, then I will say "You are neither Christian or Muslim". Where does that leave you?
The fact is directing you to the Bible doesn't answer the question. It only puts you, the seeker, on a rational, scientific journey to prove or disprove this statement from the Bible. (Of course, this is the absolute wrong way to read the Bible) And if the seeker can't find the answer, depression and doubt overwhelms him. The next typical answer is "Pray and you'll find the answer". Yes that's true. But now I am asking the seeker to go on a "spiritual" journey that he can not conceptualize because he is looking for logical, rational answers. In addition, saying "pray and you'll find the answer" doesn't guarantee an answer. (A non-guaranteed answer is an illogical response to an immediate question) In other words, he still doesn't have an answer on whether or not "Islam is truth". It is beneficial for everyone to find rational, scientific evidence that Islam is not the truth first. This starts us all on a journey that everyone has conceptualized. We are all starting on the same page. It will most definitely lead to the Bible and prayer. But it can't be the other way around.
To prove this point, look at 1 Corinthians 15:46, "The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual." The same applies to faith. You are not born hoping for the resurrection of the dead. You are not born accepting things not seen. It first takes rational, logical thought - natural human development - to accept faith as St Paul defined in Hebrews 11:1.
Of course, I would not quote the Bible to the seeker. I would "always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is me". That answer usually requires me to start with science and logic. I should have a repertoire of logical answers in addition to Biblical verses and spiritual evidence.
I hope I didn't offend anyone. It's just that in this age, we need to learn from apologetics like St Athanasius, St Cyril I, and others who proved the Trinitarian faith from material inside and outside of the gospels.
This is exactly what I wanted to say, but you said it about a bazillion times better. Thank you.
I think that fact that you actually came here and asked with a very open mind, replying to every answer with humility and respect, tell us a lot about your personality and that fact that you are seeking God, not a debate.
Just so you know, my knowledge level compared to the rest of the members on here is almost non-existent, but I have one comment regarding one of your questions. You asked about the flood. Graham Hancock in his book Fingerprints of the Gods went about this issue in way I have never seen before. He used myth and archaeological evidence to conclude (He is as unbiased as it gets.) that there is common elements in different cultures that can not be an accident. One of those elements is a common flood "myth" in all of those culture. If you have time, I think this book is worth it.
If anything, this book opened my eyes to how much we do not know. Have you ever questioned science before? <<< As illogical as it gets, did you ever ask yourself that maybe the stuff that science believes is false. A poor example is the Ptolemy system (Geocentric universe); 800 years ago almost everybody, including science, believed in a geocentric universe. What if we are doing this now? and 800 years from now some two random people would be discussing how stupid evolution is (just an example)?
If interested send me a PM here and I will send you my book.
Welcome to the site!
I think that fact that you actually came here and asked with a very open mind, replying to every answer with humility and respect, tell us a lot about your personality and that fact that you are seeking God, not a debate.
Just so you know, my knowledge level compared to the rest of the members on here is almost non-existent, but I have one comment regarding one of your questions. You asked about the flood. Graham Han**** in his book Fingerprints of the Gods went about this issue in way I have never seen before. He used myth and archaeological evidence to conclude (He is as unbiased as it gets.) that there is common elements in different cultures that can not be an accident. One of those elements is a common flood "myth" in all of those culture. If you have time, I think this book is worth it.
I'll take a look at Han****'s book. This isn't the first time I've heard this pointed out btw, and it presents its own problems. How do we know which of these stories is the original, and which are just rehashed versions? My understanding is that some flood stories actually predate the time of the Noah story, which, if true, makes it more likely that the Noah story is just a copy of an earlier flood myth. Does he address this in his book? I question science all the time. It wouldn't make sense not to. It's how progress is made.
Even in school, we were exposed to the peer review process, and were taught how to analyze and pick apart scientific articles. The process of questioning is absolutely fundamental to science.
(btw, it's not just science, I question everything. It's part of who I am.)
edit: we got filtered, really??
You have to question science because the scientists think they have a monopoly on the interpretation of evidence. Geologists will say "Each layer of earth is a time period". Really? Prove it. Well, the fact is, it is an interpretation OF the data, not an actual fact. There is, quite literally, no reliable or accurate method of dating in existence today. This idea that each layer is a time period was developed by Charles Lyell and this is taught to us as fact, and we do not question it. However, it is not fact, it is an interpretation that has become sort of a mantra. We do not know the age of the earth, it could be billions or trillions and perhaps it could be thousands, who knows! Not us!
The problem is that scientists now approach things with a preconceived notion that evolution, darwinian evolution in particular, is a proven fact. Then they criticize Christians for doing this same thing, as if we are not allowed to, only darwinian evolutionists can. Science proves nothing except that man is flawed and biased. (in terms of if Christianity is true or not)
Science is historically closed minded. When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors wash their hands after performing autopsies and then delivering babies, he was ridiculed into an insane asylum. That is one simple example, another is the opposition Darwin faced. Any new idea that challenges the status quo is rejected, regardless if it is wrong or right. Scientists like to say that science is so open minded and that is how progress is made, yet they seem hesitant to ever put that talk into action. It reminds me of islam, "we are a religion of peace" *explosion* "No seriously we are".
Fair enough, but this isn't how I was taught to conduct myself in a scientific setting. I can only speak for myself. What about radiometric dating?
And I have to completely disagree with your assertion regarding Lyell. That almost makes it sound as if no progress has been made in the field, and this is not the case at all. I've actually never known it to be the case that once one guy says something, and all of the other scientists unquestioningly accept it. The existence of the peer review process and your own example of Darwin's opposition support this as well.
I can actually take the Darwin example further: We know, and openly admit, that he got some of his facts wrong, but that in no way invalidates his main argument, which has been strengthened by over 100 years of observation and data. Evolution has tons of supporting evidence though, from different sources of inquiry, using different methodologies. We can use it to make predictions that we can experimentally confirm or disconfirm. Christianity (and other religions) simply have books, all of which contradict each other, and which are not evidence-based, and in some cases contradict the evidence we do have. (feel free to disagree with me on that last point, I'm, sure it will be addressed on this thread). That, I think, is the scientists' main issue with it,and at this point it is my main issue as well. Though I do agree that man is unfortunately flawed and biased.
Had you studied Christianity as much as you have science, I am positive you would not say something as absurd as "it just has books" which are "not evidence based". It is as silly as posting "Complete Loss of Faith". The fact that you even posted that suggests that either you do not have a complete loss of faith or you are looking for a fight.
As I said concerning dating methods, there are, by scientists own admission, no accurate or reliable method of dating.
What progress has been made in geology? Most scientists reply "we can predict that we will find certain fossils in certain layers thereby proving evolution. The method of determining this is circular reasoning, how do we know what layer the fossil is in is exactly how we determine the age of the fossil. So, if you find a trilobite, then you are in the Cambrian/Pre-cambrian, how do you know it is that time period? Because you found that fossil there. So it proves absolutely nothing. Especially since there is a growing number of scientists that believe in punctuated equilibrium to explain the sudden appearance of complex fossils with no antecendants.
Geologists also state that erosion happens over long periods of time, yet, erosion can happen in a short period of time given, say, enough water. Fact is, the geologic column is not evidence for evolution and geology certainly is not proof.
That just made my night.
Evolution has plenty of evidence, as I stated in my previous post, it depends on how it is interpreted. From other sources of inquiry? Those other sources ALSO predetermined that evolution is true, so they are not even questioning if the evidence is evidence for evolution or not, the already predetermined it was before it was even found.
I must respectfully disagree here. The whole point of doing the experiments in the first place is that the outcome is not predetermined. If evolution is false, the experiments or evidence should easily show this. Likewise, if it's true, the experiments should support it. I promise that a fight is the last thing I want.
I have studied it. Like I said earlier, I grew up in the church, and I have done tons of reading since this ordeal started, especially on its history, and on the Bible itself. All of that has led me to that conclusion. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but as of now this is the only conclusion I can draw with the information I currently have.
I consider my posting in here to be just wishful thinking at this point. Meaning, I no longer seriously think He exists, but I really want someone to prove me wrong, because I hate the sense of loss I now have. I grew up thinking I was never alone, and now I've come to the conclusion that the opposite is true, that maybe I was always alone and just didn't know it. I hate it. Can you cite this info? I've never heard this before.
If you mean "there is no method of dating that is 100% accurate with no margin of error" then I completely agree with you. But that doesn't just mean we toss our methods out the window. A margin of error doesn't make the entire measurement automatically wrong. If I tell you I'm four and a half years old, but I'm actually four years and 3 months, that doesn't mean that we can't determine my actual age, or that saying four and a half years is somehow totally wrong. Does that make sense? That's not how they do it though......and again, radiometric dating.
Also, fossils are actually not the strongest evidence we have of evolution. If that was all we had, I'd be on your side regarding this issue. By geologic column, do you mean the fossil record? The fossil record shows gradual change over time, which is exactly what we would expect to observe if evolution were the case, but not what we would expect for a 6 day creation (there would instead be no pattern to the layers). But as I stated earlier, the fossil record is just a piece of the puzzle, and not even a big piece at that. There are homologies in DNA sequences, in protein sequences, in anatomy, in development. There is also distribution of species to consider. Elaborating on this stuff could fill volumes, but my point is there is more than just fossils to look at.
We have also actually observed it in the lab. Drosophila that were reared in an environment without light for several generations gradually lost the ability to see. Bacteria raised in culture evolved an entirely new enzyme for digesting citrate, which they did not have at the time the experiment started. (There are also bacteria that evolved new, significantly different enzymes to digest byproducts of nylon, which wasn't even invented till the 1930s).
You can still totally feel free to not accept evolution. I'm not looking to get into an all out debate on it. But after studying this stuff for the past four years, I find it to make total sense, be very well-supported, and is the best explanation we have for many observations in biology. Btw, I apologize if I'm coming off as argumentative, that's not what I'm going for at all. It's 2 am here and I'm sure some of this isn't coming out clearly.
Wow, if you write out the word han****, it automatically turns it into stars.
That just made my night.
Ahahaha, I know.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a river valley, for instance, without also creating the history of that river valley. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for it to be otherwise. It is impossible to create the stars in the sky without creating the history of millions of years of travel of photons. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create even a tree without also creating the history of that tree, to create the mulch that lies on the floor of the created forest without creating the history of that mulch.
Scientists are entirely unable to say whether God created the world 10,000 years ago as a mature system, or kicked it off in a big bang.
Let posters be rather hesitant in speaking of God's creative will as a 'whimsical decree'. The creation of the world is at the very centre of God's will for all things and there is nothing about God which is whimsical. The connection between the Word of God and the working out of his will in Creation is not accidental. When he speaks it is the very Word of God who acts.
I think your problems stem from not having a personal relationship with God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter proceeds the Father and teaches us all we need to know.
I find that many of us are like the Saducees and Pharisees performing all the rituals, but not knowing God; so that when He comes to us face to face....we do not recognize Him.....crucify Him even.
We become like the "sounding brass" the prophets spoke of. Like Church cymbals played without rythmn; just noise.
St. Antony the Father of Monastacism speaks of 'intellect' and how worthless it is if it shows us there is no God.
God created all. God gives us knowledge and we use it to disprove His existence. I have yet to see a doctor heal his patient through prayer. Making the lame walk without poking or prodding or experimenting on.......just heal for heavens sake. Make the blind see, just by faith. Now if a man could figure that out then I would call him a true intellect. All the rest is just empty noise.
K-man you should read H. H. Pope Shenouda III's books. The one on Diabolical wars could be of great interest to you. Read the books of the holy orthodox fathers.....first seek ye the kingdom of heaven then all things will follow after. Don't lose your great reward, your beautiful crown
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155907#msg155907 date=1337755321]
Our God has created a mature universe. Therefore he has created the history of the universe at the same time. This does not mean that the universe is objectively old, or that he did not create Adam and Eve as we are taught.
How do we know that though? But things change over time, and the universe is not frozen. The river valley had to start to exist at some point in time, wouldn't it? So if we time travelled (for the sake of argument) to right before it started, we would actually be able to observe it starting. Or are you saying this is not the case?
I'm also confused about your point regarding stars. If they only began to exist <10000 years ago (in absolute terms), then there is no reason that photons from stars that are more than 10000 light years away should be visible from earth. The only way I see that as being possible, is if the stars and the photons in the intervening space between them and earth were created simultaneously. But that sounds kind of deceptive (forgive my use of the word, but I see no way around it). I agree with this. There is no way to prove or disprove it. It's unfalsifiable.
But I also still don't fully understand. If the universe was <10000 years old (in absolute terms), why is it not also that age in apparent terms? I don't see it as being impossible to create a universe with both an apparent and an absolute age that are the same. Tree rings, the rate of decay of certain isotopes, fossils, cosmic microwave background radiation, the expansion of the universe. All of these suggest an age, and this is what makes it hard for a lot of people (myself included) to adopt a young-creation point of view. Why the deception? Could He not have left these things out or tweaked them in such a way as to suggest a <10000 year universe?
[quote author=Purity2 link=topic=13328.msg155911#msg155911 date=1337787198]
Greetings K-man,
I think your problems stem from not having a personal relationship with God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter proceeds the Father and teaches us all we need to know.
I'm sure this is accurate. But how can I develop a personal relationship with someone I'm not sure exists? How do I know it won't be all in my head? That's why I'm taking this approach.
How do we know that though? Therein lies my issue. I don't understand....isn't that where science comes in?
Thanks. I've actually read (and own) several of his books, including that one. But I should look into the fathers more.
[quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13328.msg155894#msg155894 date=1337743942]
Welcome to the site!
I think that fact that you actually came here and asked with a very open mind, replying to every answer with humility and respect, tell us a lot about your personality and that fact that you are seeking God, not a debate.
Just so you know, my knowledge level compared to the rest of the members on here is almost non-existent, but I have one comment regarding one of your questions. You asked about the flood. Graham Han**** in his book Fingerprints of the Gods went about this issue in way I have never seen before. He used myth and archaeological evidence to conclude (He is as unbiased as it gets.) that there is common elements in different cultures that can not be an accident. One of those elements is a common flood "myth" in all of those culture. If you have time, I think this book is worth it.
I'll take a look at Han****'s book. This isn't the first time I've heard this pointed out btw, and it presents its own problems. How do we know which of these stories is the original, and which are just rehashed versions? My understanding is that some flood stories actually predate the time of the Noah story, which, if true, makes it more likely that the Noah story is just a copy of an earlier flood myth. Does he address this in his book? I question science all the time. It wouldn't make sense not to. It's how progress is made.
Even in school, we were exposed to the peer review process, and were taught how to analyze and pick apart scientific articles. The process of questioning is absolutely fundamental to science.
(btw, it's not just science, I question everything. It's part of who I am.)
edit: we got filtered, really??
By questioning science, I did not mean the "questioning" we do at school. Back to the geocentric example, Brahe was a great scientist and he had one of the greatest astronomical libraries in his time, yet he still believe in a geocentric universe. Kepler came after him and used the same library and concluded that it is a heliocentric universe with elliptical orbits. You see my point? Two people with the same data can conclude two different things and the both believed that they are right...
He does, but does not. He is trying so hard to be an biased that he does not compare the evidence with the bible as much. You would have to do your own research on this.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure I follow here. Can you differentiate between this questioning and the questioning we do at school?
(Also, Kepler used his own observations and calculations to arrive at his conclusions (meaning, although they shared data, new data had to be added before Kepler could draw the conclusions he did). Brahe's library was a starting point for his theories, not the entire foundation. At least, that's my understanding of it.)
[quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=13328.msg155894#msg155894 date=1337743942]
He does, but does not. He is trying so hard to be an biased that he does not compare the evidence with the bible as much. You would have to do your own research on this.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure I follow here. Can you differentiate between this questioning and the questioning we do at school?
(Also, Kepler used his own observations and calculations to arrive at his conclusions (meaning, although they shared data, new data had to be added before Kepler could draw the conclusions he did). Brahe's library was a starting point for his theories, not the entire foundation. At least, that's my understanding of it.)
When we test a theory at school, we test it the same ways that this theory work. What if we need to look at it from a completely different angle to find that it is wrong? At school, your testings are almost always biased.
My point is, from the example and all, how do you know a theory that we build on is not completely wrong? People believed in a geocentric universe and built many theories on it, yet it was wrong. They all observed the same thing that Copernicus observed, yet the observed a geocentric universe. You see my point?
All what I am saying is: Science is biased and close minded. We can not trust it, nor it is illusions of theory testing.
Your very notion of God, when you doubt, is sufficient proof of His existence. You cannot have the concept of 'God' or 'infinite', etc., without God existing. Where would you get it from? You have nothing in the universe that could give you these concepts. God placed some knowledge of Himself in our hearts so that we may return to Him.
Your very existence depends on God. He is our life. What gives life to the world? What gives life to man? It is His breath that formed us. How else could we have come into existence, when we were not?
The rationalist approach you are taking to learning about God may be a vicious cycle that never leads to answers. I read an account of St. Andrew the Apostle's martyrdom in which I learned a great lesson.
As St. Andrew was preaching to the roman governor (?) he was telling him about the Eucharist. The governor obviously thought it was nonsense, how can you eat someone and he still live eternally?! St. Andrew repeatedly told him that he must believe to understand and that if he did not believe he would never understand. This is how the apostles preached. This is how God reveals Himself to us. When we show faith, we are rewarded.
I can already anticipate the worries you have in doing this. Perhaps you think that you will feel a false sense of spirituality and never be sure of God's existence.
All we can do is tell God that we believe and ask Him to help our unbelief.
have to go and do some more work but will pray for u all.
God bless yr journeys.
:)
In the spirit of ILSM,
Rational=logical
The Logos=logical
The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
When we test a theory at school, we test it the same ways that this theory work. What if we need to look at it from a completely different angle to find that it is wrong? At school, your testings are almost always biased.
Ah, I think I understand what you're saying now.
This might be true in chem lab or physics lab, where the goal is to teach you how a specific principle works. But that is by no means how it's done in the real world. I've been working in a lab and going to scientific conferences for over two years now, and it's completely different than how it's taught in school. The goal in those labs is to teach you some principle that has already been verified through rigorous experimentation (acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, for example). The basic goal in a professional lab is to come up with a model for your observations, and try to disprove it. You shouldn't assume that the two are the same. Does that make sense? I see what you're saying, but we can't look at one or two examples and then assume all of science is somehow flawed or totally off base. We know a theory works if it is supported by repeated observation and experimentation.
And please don't misunderstand, but maybe geocentrism isn't the best example to use for this. People believed in a geocentric universe because they thought that it was supported by Scripture, not because of the observations. It's the same reason Galileo was put under house arrest - his support of heliocentrism was viewed as an attack on the church (though it obviously wasn't). The observations weren't the primary motivation in this situation. Based on my education and firsthand experience, I must respectfully disagree. Although I agree that science is not perfect, I think is the best tool we have, and it works more often than it doesn't.
wow, nice answers and questions in this thread.
have to go and do some more work but will pray for u all.
God bless yr journeys.
:)
Thank you!
I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM,
Rational=logical
The Logos=logical
The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
Oh my goodness, thank you! Take all the time you need.
I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM,
Rational=logical
The Logos=logical
The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
Im on the edge of my seat...
Blind Bartimaeus had it right. He neither saw Christ, nor knew him. But he cried out, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. This is always the cry of the one seeking God.
I have a lifetime of reasonable experience that supports my faith, but my faith is a living trust in the God who is here with me always. I do not have faith because someone has proved to me that God exists, but because I have met him.
The people of Samaria were drawn to hope in Christ because of the testimony of the woman's experience of Christ. But when they met him for themselves they said...
Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
If a person does not meet Christ for themselves they cannot have faith, because faith is trust in a person, not accepting certain facts. They must have a sense of need and even a fragile hope. The journey of faith is not unreasonable but it is not intellectual. If a person has no need and no hope they will not easily find Christ.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13328.msg155928#msg155928 date=1337802733]
Take your doubt as the greatest evidence of God's existence.
Your very notion of God, when you doubt, is sufficient proof of His existence. You cannot have the concept of 'God' or 'infinite', etc., without God existing. Where would you get it from? You have nothing in the universe that could give you these concepts. God placed some knowledge of Himself in our hearts so that we may return to Him.
I must respectfully disagree. The concept of infinity is all over the place in mathematics. I don't see the necessity for God to exist in order for us to be able to think of infinity.
I also have concepts of the gods of other religions (Zeus, Thor, Allah, Krishna, etc.), but that doesn't have any bearing on their existence. If this question is asking "how did humans come to be?", science gives us an answer already that I find satisfactory. If your underlying question is "why is there something rather than nothing?", I don't have an answer. I struggle with this same question. That's what I'm afraid of, but I'm going to wait and see. Isn't this going in a circle though? I have to believe to understand, but I need the understanding to believe? I don't think I can bring myself to do that. For me, the understanding has to come first. Otherwise, how can I say I believe it? Yeah, that's exactly right. I'm trying, but the lack of a response is unsettling.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg155938#msg155938 date=1337808680]
There is plenty of reasonable evidence to show that Christ existed and that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
I agree with the first part of this, but disagree with the second. My understanding is that the majority of current scholarship does not consider the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts, and has held this view for some time. That doesn't automatically make them right, of course, but as of now I find them convincing. This is not to suggest I'm not willing to be persuaded otherwise. Hmm....How would you recommend one go about it? If we can't deduce His existence in some compelling way, how would I come to believe it? A few years ago this was exactly how I felt as well. But, as I currently have no way of differentiating between genuine experience and the whole thing being in my head, and since I also currently do not have even a basis for assuming it to be genuine experience, I'm forced to take the view that the whole thing was in my head. I really want to be proven wrong here especially. But....Isn't this an example of someone being convinced into the faith? They wouldn't just take her word for it till they saw it for themselves and found it convincing. I'm not sure I understand...
I don't understand why there are so many responses assuming that the only way to God is a spiritual path and void of reason, evidence and logic.
In the spirit of ILSM,
Rational=logical
The Logos=logical
The Logos=rational
If you can't prove your faith logically and rationally, you have no business attempting to prove it metaphysically and spiritually. It's like claiming a new born baby must eat solid food because he can't prove why milk is sufficient.
K-Man, I am preparing a response that I think will help. It will be a call for deductive reasoning and cognitive philosophy to prove God exists and all your doubts and questions can be addressed deductive evidence. Just give me some time.
No one said it is the only way. It is the best way. It is the stable way. Faith shouldn't be founded on your own reasoning abilities. What of those who are incapable of understanding the reasons for God's existence? What of little children? Should we try to explain to 2nd graders how the flood was possible, that evolution is bogus, etc.? Certainly not. If our faith is based on reasoning, then it comes from us. And if our faith comes from us, it is weak.
Logic and reasoning just confirms what we already know and believe.
[quote author=markmarcos link=topic=13328.msg155944#msg155944 date=1337814634]
Try to think about the many miracles that have happened in our time for example the Virgin Mary appearing in Egypt this can not be explained by science.
This is something I often think about. I've seen videos, and as of now I have no alternative explanation for this (though the videos I've seen weren't very good quality). For something like this, I feel like I'd have to see it for myself in person before I'd be able to make a decision. I've looked at several (decent quality) videos of this, and from what I was able to tell, it doesn't appear any different than normal fire. Have you seen this for yourself?
Also, miracles have been reported in other religions. That alone makes it difficult to pick one on the basis of miracles alone.