Explain how God can exist

[Wormwood]

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.
http://science.howst...bang-theory.htm

Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

And so, when it comes to explaining the bang itself—the primordial push that must have set the universe headlong on its expansionary course—the Big Bang theory is silent.
http://www.smithsoni...0951168/?no-ist

Well, pretty much every publication out there says the "big bang" does not explain the first cause. So, I guess we can just say that those in the field cant make up their mind on the issue. Either way, my point was simply that my quote did not display "ignorance." It's based on what scientists themselves claim about the theory. If you take issue with it, then fine. However, just know you aren't arguing with some evangelical anti-science group as you made it sound. You are arguing with other scientists who write on the subject. Moreover, there are new theories being postulated that argue that the big bang never even took place. In any event, its clearly not a well-defined idea that has any real consensus.

And no, I don't subscribe to your black/white thinking where either God was the cause of the big bang or it happened naturally. For me those two are not at all mutually exclusive, in the same way that explaining why rocks roll downhill (gravity) doesn't rule out God. The universe itself is a revelation from God so when we study it, we can't be afraid of what we might find.

Hmm, so before the universe and its laws began, God spoke the universe into existence via the non-existing natural laws of the universe. :blink: This argument is non-sequitur.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, pretty much every publication out there says the "big bang" does not explain the first cause.

That's because it doesn't. I've not said otherwise.

So, I guess we can just say that those in the field cant make up their mind on the issue.

????????? No idea what you're talking about.

Either way, my point was simply that my quote did not display "ignorance." It's based on what scientists themselves claim about the theory. If you take issue with it, then fine. However, just know you aren't arguing with some evangelical anti-science group as you made it sound. You are arguing with other scientists who write on the subject. Moreover, there are new theories being postulated that argue that the big bang never even took place. In any event, its clearly not a well-defined idea that has any real consensus.

Honestly, I don't know how else to explain this. For example...

Hmm, so before the universe and its laws began, God spoke the universe into existence via the non-existing natural laws of the universe. :blink: This argument is non-sequitur.

You're engaging in yet another straw man. All I said was that a natural cause for the universe does not automatically preclude God creating it, and from that you got "God spoke the universe into existence via the non-existing natural laws of the universe"?

Yeah....seems pretty obvious to me that you're rooting against science on this, and me saying a scientific explanation for things doesn't preclude God creating them clearly struck a nerve. But then, that's not exactly surprising to me any more.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm confused. You said,

Actually, scientists are working on figuring out the cause of the big bang. I don't know where you got the idea that they weren't. (underline mine)

I said,

Well, pretty much every publication out there says the "big bang" does not explain the first cause.

And you said,

That's because it doesn't. I've not said otherwise.

Am I being "Punk'd"?

Honestly, I don't know how else to explain this. For example...

Are you looking for me to give you an example of scientists making this claim..or were you going to give an example and forgot? I provided three quotes above that claim the theory does not explain the origins of the supposed first particle or the cause of its expansion. Again, this goes back to the idea that "nothing created everything." You are claiming the big bang gives explanations for why things began and how. I am saying it does not. It only tries to explain the process of how things developed once they spontaneously appeared and inexplicably exploded (for those who argue God is not necessary in the process). Again, there is no explanation for what created the first particle or the cause of its explosion. Its essentially "nothing." It just did it. And that is somehow more logical to your friends than a creator. This is what I find intellectually baffling, and I am the one who is "ignorant" on the topic somehow.

You're engaging in yet another straw man. All I said was that a natural cause for the universe does not automatically preclude God creating it, and from that you got "God spoke the universe into existence via the non-existing natural laws of the universe"?

Im trying to figure out how to explain the logical steps here more clearly. You are arguing that the first particle was spawned into existence and exploded for purely natural reasons which doesn't preclude God doing it. I'm asking how this could happen "naturally" when natural laws don't exist prior to the particle exploding in the first place. Also, how did the "particle" spawn into existence "naturally." Is there a natural law of ex nihilo generation of matter and energy I don't know about? Point being...you cant have the "first cause" be a "natural cause" because the laws of nature are all based on effect...not a first, ex nihilo, creative cause. That is decidedly "super-natural." There is just simply no way around it.

 

[River Jordan]

Am I being "Punk'd"?

Ok, I see what's happened. We're using the same words, but meaning different things with them. When I see the words "big bang", I'm specifically thinking of the mathematical model, The Lambda-CDM Model, commonly referred to as The Standard Model. So when you say "the big bang does not explain the first cause", I agree because that mathematical model doesn't address that. However, that doesn't mean scientists aren't working on trying to figure out the first cause; they are, it's just not under the big bang mathematical model.

Does that make sense how "the big bang does not explain the first cause" and "scientists are working on figuring out the first cause" can both be true?

Im trying to figure out how to explain the logical steps here more clearly. You are arguing that the first particle was spawned into existence and exploded for purely natural reasons which doesn't preclude God doing it. I'm asking how this could happen "naturally" when natural laws don't exist prior to the particle exploding in the first place. Also, how did the "particle" spawn into existence "naturally." Is there a natural law of ex nihilo generation of matter and energy I don't know about? Point being...you cant have the "first cause" be a "natural cause" because the laws of nature are all based on effect...not a first, ex nihilo, creative cause. That is decidedly "super-natural." There is just simply no way around it.

Current hypotheses (and that's what they are) involve quantum fluctuations that are indeed, spontaneous appearances of energetic particles.

 

[Wormwood]

Ok, I see what's happened. We're using the same words, but meaning different things with them. When I see the words "big bang", I'm specifically thinking of the mathematical model, The Lambda-CDM Model, commonly referred to as The Standard Model. So when you say "the big bang does not explain the first cause", I agree because that mathematical model doesn't address that. However, that doesn't mean scientists aren't working on trying to figure out the first cause; they are, it's just not under the big bang mathematical model.

Fair enough. Miscommunications happen. I still think my original summaries of the various views are not "ignorant" based on what has been explored above.

Current hypotheses (and that's what they are) involve quantum fluctuations that are indeed, spontaneous appearances of energetic particles.

Yes, and its just another of a host of various stabs at this: multiverse, big bang, superstrings, anti-matter, etc. Ultimately, I think the design has a designer. If scientists find a way to quantify how the forces came together and produced the universe we now have, that's great. Saying it happened spontaneously without an originator or law-maker is not a plea to rationality and the claim of creation is not a plea to ignorance. I think these are common categorical errors.

 

[Jun2u]

How can anyone speak and things come to exist?

Our minds are not created to understand such matters and for anyone to say otherwise the truth is not in him!

Below is an excerpt taken from a Christian web site. I hope and pray will help.

[SIZE=12pt]Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.[/SIZE]
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural ([SIZE=12pt]Genesis 1:1http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis 1.1[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), powerful ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Jeremiah 32:17http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jeremiah 32.17[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), eternal ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Psalm 90:2http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Psalm 90.2[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), omnipresent ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Psalm 139:7http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Psalm 139.7[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), timeless/changeless ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Malachi 3:6http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Malachi 3.6[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), immaterial ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]John 5:24http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 5.24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), personal ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Genesis 3:9http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis 3.9[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), necessary ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Colossians 1:17http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Colossians 1.17[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), infinite/singular ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Jeremiah 23:24http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jeremiah 23.24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt],[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Deuteronomy 6:4http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deuteronomy 6.4[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), diverse yet with unity ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Matthew 28:19http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew 28.19[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), intelligent ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Psalm 147:4-5http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Psalm 147.4-5[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), purposeful ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Jeremiah 29:11http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jeremiah 29.11[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), moral ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Daniel 9:14http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Daniel 9.14[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]), and caring ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1 Peter 5:6-7http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Peter 5.6-7[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”[/SIZE]

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth ([SIZE=12pt]Romans 1:20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans 1.20[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]John 1:12-13http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 1.12-13[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt])[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt].[/SIZE]

 

[River Jordan]

Fair enough. Miscommunications happen. I still think my original summaries of the various views are not "ignorant" based on what has been explored above.


Yes, and its just another of a host of various stabs at this: multiverse, big bang, superstrings, anti-matter, etc. Ultimately, I think the design has a designer. If scientists find a way to quantify how the forces came together and produced the universe we now have, that's great. Saying it happened spontaneously without an originator or law-maker is not a plea to rationality and the claim of creation is not a plea to ignorance. I think these are common categorical errors.

Glad we could clear that up, and I definitely agree with you.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:[/size]

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

I know all that looks solid, but if you look through some of the links I've provided in this thread, the argument above isn't very good.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

That's basically Pascal's Wager, which I can tell you is immediately rejected (and laughed at) by most atheists. Think of it this way....if a follower of another religion tried to use this argument to convert you, you likely wouldn't find "well what if you're wrong...you should be safe and believe in my faith just to be sure" a compelling reason to convert.

 

[Jun2u]

The Bible is the “only” source book of truth.

When we went to school and studied academic subjects we had a “common denominator”. That is,
when we study about history, we confer with a history book as a guide, or when we want to learn about mathematics we look to an arithmetic book for guidance...etc. All these academic books we had to learn therefore became the common denominator.

Likewise, when we study or speak about the things of God, we look to the Bible for guidance and make it the common denominator as well.

In contrast, the atheist have no book or common denominator to guide him in the things of God, therefore; he must make “assumptions”. An atheist already is in error, in that he “does” believe in the existence of God, or else how can he say there is no God?

Every man is spiritual because he was created in the image of God. Intuitively he “knows” there is a God. Many atheists are reprobates and God have given up on them to do what they will for they had the knowledge and used it not. No one is without excuse!

Romans 1:19-22

19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In fact read the whole chapter of Romans Chapter One.

To God Be The Glory

 

[River Jordan]

The Bible is the “only” source book of truth.

That's what we believe as Christians (well, sort of....there are other books that have truth in them ).

An atheist already is in error, in that he “does” believe in the existence of God, or else how can he say there is no God?

That doesn't really make any sense.

Every man is spiritual because he was created in the image of God. Intuitively he “knows” there is a God. Many atheists are reprobates and God have given up on them to do what they will for they had the knowledge and used it not. No one is without excuse!

Right, that's what we believe as Christians. Atheists however, don't believe that, so appealing to scripture is hardly compelling to them. And calling them "reprobates" is a sure way of shutting down any productive conversation you might have otherwise had.

 

[KingJ]

There was a similar topic started a while back "Questions for an atheist." I don't think the question it's self was properly posed. So, what I propose is this:

How can you prove, with credibility and evidence, that God does in fact exist? Now, I would like to ask, that if possible, when using scripture in an argument, please find a way to connect it to tangible evidence if possible. I also understand at some point it is what you would choose to believe.

Now, as believers and followers of Christ we have faith and have seen evidence in our own lives. But remember, you are, at this point, trying to convince someone, atheist or otherwise that there is a God. How are you going to do it?

BA Out!

Christians tend to trip on this because they want to get atheists to believe in the Christian God's existence.

Belief in God is as easy as using any of your five senses or grasping you can use any of them. As Isaac Newton says ''He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.''

The real question is about who the real God is. Jesus, a spaceman, Allah, Dawkins genes in a primordial sludge or a three eyed robot. I believe that as people after God's heart, God does NOT want us to have any doubt about the nature of a man that walked the earth 2000 years ago. We can use our brain like Napoleon did http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/04/napoleons-proof-for-divinity-of-jesus.html. But there is a specific scripture that is very interesting indeed 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

What should we say to atheists?? Well we should tell them to come to God on His terms (Psalm 51:17, Matt 16:24) not theirs (God of the universe must do a magic trick for them, God of the universe must fall on their lap....God of the universe would sooner strike them with lightning...the arrogance!!).

 

[Born_Again]

Stephen Hawkings says the universe exists because it had too... Not sure what that means or the theology behind it. To me, that means he could see no other logical explanation because he refuses to accept intelligent design. I saw an article recently that there was a new theory that life on earth was started by aliens..... :wacko: I wish I would have gotten the link to post it. At any rate, modern science is running out of tangible and provable reasons of why our world is here. Every ten years someone releases a new study to prove the other guy wrong. However, we are the only ones who have not changed our answer and still stick with the same reasoning. Simply put, "God said "let there be light".

 

[River Jordan]

Stephen Hawkings says the universe exists because it had too... Not sure what that means or the theology behind it. To me, that means he could see no other logical explanation because he refuses to accept intelligent design.

No, it's actually a layperson depiction of his mathematical model that shows how the universe can arise on its own from natural conditions.

I saw an article recently that there was a new theory that life on earth was started by aliens..... :wacko: I wish I would have gotten the link to post it. At any rate, modern science is running out of tangible and provable reasons of why our world is here. Every ten years someone releases a new study to prove the other guy wrong. However, we are the only ones who have not changed our answer and still stick with the same reasoning. Simply put, "God said "let there be light".

Expanding on what Wormwood and I were discussing, we have the Lambda-CDM model that explains the universe from just after the big bang through now. There are also a few models that explain the origin of the singularity and the initiation of expansion. The trick now is to figure out how to fit one of the origin models with the Lambda-CDM model. Basically it's a matter of uniting general relativity with quantum mechanics, which would then be a "theory of everything". I'm not sure how close they are to doing that, or even if they're making any progress....it's not something I follow regularly. But I'd guess that eventually they will figure it out, as history seems to suggest.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

No, it's actually a layperson depiction of his mathematical model that shows how the universe can arise on its own from natural conditions.

What "natural conditions"?

 

[River Jordan]

You'll have to read Hawking's book The Grand Design.

 

[aspen]

I hate to say this because sounds like a cop out, but hear me out. I think this comes down to an issue of authority. Which information do you consider credible? Our inner critic can dismiss any evidence presented to us. Atheists will dismiss any information presented to them that hints at a creator. Fundamentalists will dismiss any information that does not. Both sides believe they have rock solid proof for their worldview, when in fact not even one of us can prove with evidence that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

What it comes down to for me is, what kind of a person do I want to become? And what information is going to help me reach my goal? I want to be a selfless lover of people and creation. I also want to be educated. I believe Jesus is a good teacher and the Holy Spirit is a great guide to help me reach my goal. I believe that human knowledge is precious and useful - not really interested in human conclusions.

Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have different goals than I do. I see their choices and wonder if they are happy. If being a critic lead people to happiness, I think we would all be dancing in the streets. Also critics avoid responsibility for their own choices because all their energy that should be focused on their own path is aimed at critiquing everyone else. No one looks to bill maher as an example of peace of mind or as a lover of humanity because his choices are self centered and hedonistic and most people realize or soon discover that hedonism is a hollow way to experience life. For me, keeping my outer life simple and my inner life rich leads to love, fulfillment and ultimately to salvation. Quibbling about who has reached the right conclusion seems like training to become a tic-tac-toe athlete - a master of the game of chance.

I have also noticed that feeling right about something or everything is often substituted for feeling fulfilled. Realizing I am quoting dr Phil (sigh) - do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?

It is not an easy life, and I am far from the goal but I have faith and all I can do is to keep practicing my sanctification.

 

[River Jordan]

I hate to say this because sounds like a cop out, but hear me out. I think this comes down to an issue of authority. Which information do you consider credible?

Definitely. Most people aren't strong enough in the sciences to be able to pour over competing arguments and, based solely on the data, discern who is the more accurate. So instead the go with who's telling them what they want to hear.

Our inner critic can dismiss any evidence presented to us. Atheists will dismiss any information presented to them that hints at a creator. Fundamentalists will dismiss any information that does not. Both sides believe they have rock solid proof for their worldview, when in fact not even one of us can prove with evidence that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

That's the nature of extremism.

What it comes down to for me is, what kind of a person do I want to become? And what information is going to help me reach my goal? I want to be a selfless lover of people and creation. I also want to be educated. I believe Jesus is a good teacher and the Holy Spirit is a great guide to help me reach my goal. I believe that human knowledge is precious and useful - not really interested in human conclusions.

I agree. God does not want us to "turn off our brains" or deny the obvious reality of His creation. To do so is to do a great disservice to the gifts He's given us.

Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have different goals than I do. I see their choices and wonder if they are happy. If being a critic lead people to happiness, I think we would all be dancing in the streets. Also critics avoid responsibility for their own choices because all their energy that should be focused on their own path is aimed at critiquing everyone else. No one looks to bill maher as an example of peace of mind or as a lover of humanity because his choices are self centered and hedonistic and most people realize or soon discover that hedonism is a hollow way to experience life. For me, keeping my outer life simple and my inner life rich leads to love, fulfillment and ultimately to salvation. Quibbling about who has reached the right conclusion seems like training to become a tic-tac-toe athlete - a master of the game of chance.

Well put!

I have also noticed that feeling right about something or everything is often substituted for feeling fulfilled. Realizing I am quoting dr Phil (sigh) - do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?

It is not an easy life, and I am far from the goal but I have faith and all I can do is to keep practicing my sanctification.

Good to see you posting again Aspen. We miss you here. ^_^

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You'll have to read Hawking's book The Grand Design.

Have you read it?

 

[Born_Again]

Good points Aspen. Good to see you back on the boards, brother!

 

[KingJ]

I was thinking about the Pharisees yesterday. How is it that they studied about the true God for years from centuries of passed down knowledge....yet God of the universe in their very presence flew right over their head. Why? I believe it is exactly the same with atheists and the question of God's existence.

Proof of God's existence = every atom that exists / existence of life. Stating you have a disbelief or lack of belief in God or god's is hence simply extremely DUMB. But... atheists have IQ > 30 / don't appear to be dumb, so why do they believe what is clearly dumb? Well it is just like those who crucified Jesus when He was clearly innocent and all the evidence pointed heavily in favor of Him not being an ordinary human...were there others at the time that walked and water and taught such love? Is it sane to want to crucify someone like Jesus or the recent Mother Theresa for how good they are? How dumb from inner sickness you must be for that. Atheists want to jump on theists. They want to cause offence. An honest and sincere person would say I believe in ''the unknown God''.

Either 1. Pride leads to blindness which in turn leads to stupidity or 2. Pride leads to intentional blindness which leads to stupidity as they simply don't want to accept the truth. Does God harden hearts / God is partial VS God just stops delivering us from evil / we reject Him and try our best to cover it up, live each day removing Him from our thoughts.

I am not suggesting atheists are on par with those that killed Jesus. But it is clear proof that pride is the root sickness that needs to be dealt with.

We need to help atheists grasp what Christian faith is all about. Abraham did NOT have faith in God's existence, that was a given. Abraham had faith IN God. We need to try steer discussion with atheists in that direction and help them grasp why we serve the God we do.

 

[River Jordan]

Have you read it?

Not all of it. We read parts of it for a course I took a while ago.