Most convincing argument for God

[Francis Thomas]

I was wondering which of the many arguments for God (Cosmological, Teleological etc) people found most convincing, or is it the combination of many arguments?

 

Personally I find the Cosmological Argument the most convincing (although it is clearly flawed and I have remained an Atheist) due to the comparative lack of understanding about the origins of our Universe.

 

I suspect that this will turn into a discussion into the validity of the arguments, but discussions will be beneficial for both believers and non-believers, so I would highly encourage people to critique the
arguments.

[DENNY]

Harris stated, "We do not have direct access to history, for this reason, nothing in history is known with as great a level of confidence as what we know from science. History speaks in probabilities"

This just proves that you don't understand science. Forensic science is just as much as science as operational science. History as well as things that can be observed in the present can only be known as probabilities so your second argument is just as fallacious as the first.

I will repeat: We know with as much certainty based on the evidence that Christ rose from the dead and gravity are true. The law of gravity also based on the evidence and is a scientific fact.

In both cases, we cannot directly observe gravity or the resurrection. We only have the evidence that can be considered in both cases. NO ONE has directly observed Gravity! We are only able to observe the effects which we call evidence. The evidence can only be explained by the law of Gravity. The same is exactly true for the resurrection. The evidence for the resurrection can only be explained by the resurrection itself.

These are scientific facts and the fact that you don't understand science and want to narrow science to only that which is observed by atheists and which can only be directly observed is short-sited on your part due to your own arrogance.

By your own practice, gravity as a scentific fact would have to be denied since it has never been directly observed. However, everyone based on my definition of science would agree that the law of gravity is a scientific fact.

I am just exposing your sleight of hand and how dishonest atheist are when they state their case. You only have smoke and mirrors without consistency.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

Harris stated, "We can measure gravity."


LOL LOL LOL LOL

We can't even see gravity and Harris is out there measuring it... I guess he can measure an invisible and undetectable reality... No one has ever seen nor measured gravity itself.

Harris is really saying that the evidence can be considered because everytime we observe the evidence, the only explanation is the law of gravity.

The same line of evidence is used for the resurrection. Everytime we go to the evidence, the only explanation that can explain the evidence is the resurrection.

He then states, "You've got a long way to go to show how the Gospels are evidence on the same level as the evidence for gravity. They simply are not"

Harris just denies the obvious and all evidence which is the same as sticking his head in the sand. I always have a good time talking with atheists because their arguments are not grounded in reason. They just reject the evidence without consideration because they are indoctrinated.... LOL

You will notice that Harris attempts to move the evidence to historian opinions which is just hilarious. It is like moving the evidence for evolution to the opinion of Creationists... Of course, Harris doesn't see how irrational this is, but it is fun for all rational people to see...

Harris is one of the most dogmatic, biased, and irrational people I have met in a long time...

God Bless and thanks for a good laugh again...

[Francis Thomas]

“We can't even see gravity and Harris is out there measuring it... I guess he can measure an invisible and undetectable reality... No one has ever seen nor measured gravity itself.”

We can’t see wind either, yet it is measurable.

“Harris is really saying that the evidence can be considered because everytime we observe the evidence, the only explanation is the law of gravity.”

Intelligent Falling is an explanation as well. However like Intelligent Design it isn’t based on evidence or rationality.

“The same line of evidence is used for the resurrection. Everytime we go to the evidence, the only explanation that can explain the evidence is the resurrection.”

Mistaken identity, myth, fraud and exaggeration of the facts are all explanations for the resurrection story.

I someone who believes that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-women was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree isn’t qualified to call someone “dogmatic, biased, and irrational”.

ZDENNY said:

Harris stated, "We can measure gravity."


LOL LOL LOL LOL

We can't even see gravity and Harris is out there measuring it... I guess he can measure an invisible and undetectable reality... No one has ever seen nor measured gravity itself.

Harris is really saying that the evidence can be considered because everytime we observe the evidence, the only explanation is the law of gravity.

The same line of evidence is used for the resurrection. Everytime we go to the evidence, the only explanation that can explain the evidence is the resurrection.

He then states, "You've got a long way to go to show how the Gospels are evidence on the same level as the evidence for gravity. They simply are not"

Harris just denies the obvious and all evidence which is the same as sticking his head in the sand. I always have a good time talking with atheists because their arguments are not grounded in reason. They just reject the evidence without consideration because they are indoctrinated.... LOL

You will notice that Harris attempts to move the evidence to historian opinions which is just hilarious. It is like moving the evidence for evolution to the opinion of Creationists... Of course, Harris doesn't see how irrational this is, but it is fun for all rational people to see...

Harris is one of the most dogmatic, biased, and irrational people I have met in a long time...

God Bless and thanks for a good laugh again...

[Michael Zaloom]

Francis, definitely check out ReasonableFaith.org. Dr. William Lane Craig is the man. Subscribe to his podcast, watch his debates on youtube and on the website. Personally I find the Cosmological argument elegant and effective. It's easy to help someone see the truth in it. 1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2)the universe began to exist. 3)therefore the universe has a cause. There are people who object and say science is investigating other options, but it's real easy to drum home the fact that there was NOTHING "before" the Big Bang - no time, no fluctuating sea of energy (like when they say that atoms come in and out of being uncaused). Anyone can understand it and it rings true with experience.

I have been getting a lot of mileage out of the Moral argument. 1)If God does not exist, objective moral values does not exist. 2)Objective moral values DO exist 3)therefore, God does exist. I love it because atheists and anti-theists just LOVE to point out all the wrong that is in the bible and that the church has done through the ages (slavery being a favorite) but it's great to switch it around and let them know that you agree that those are horrible but on what basis can an atheist say anything is really "wrong"? They may actually admit that it is a social construct, a survival tool, and not truly transcendently right or wrong.

Again, it's not about embarrassing them, though it is about gently shattering their illusions. That's what happens when you listen to too much Richard Dawkins or Hitchens - you get cocky and caught off guard by intelligent christians. God bless and Let me know what you think of ReasonableFaith.org!

[Francis Thomas]

Humans are answer seeking animals and we often find it more satisfying to have an answer than to not have one. However, when it comes down to it, the only intellectual answer we can give to questions science hasn’t yet answered is “we don’t know”. The Cosmological Argument seems to be, to some extent, an argument from ignorance: “We don’t know what (if anything) created the Universe, therefore it was god”. This is quite a weak way of criticizing the Cosmological Argument, especially as the Cosmological Argument has worse flaws than this one.

As Victor J Stenger points out in God: The Failed Hypothesis “One sign of a supernatural creation would be a direct empirical confirmation that a miracle was necessary in order to bring the Universe into existence”. Yet we do not see this confirmation. Science has an explanation to the origins of the Universe as we know it, the Big Bang, and this doesn’t rely on supernatural explanations. Originally a derogatory term used to describe the theory by people who believed in a Steady-State Universe. There was no “bang” in the Big Bang, it was a sudden expansion of a singularity which contained all matter and energy in the Universe. Many people ask “What was there before the Big Bang?”. This question doesn’t make any sense since all of the physical laws, space and time were contained within the singularity. The question is like asking someone to go south of the South-pole. The Big Bang answers the main big questions of where did the Universe come from

One of the main problems with the Cosmological Argument is that it tells us nothing about the nature of the “unmoved mover”/ “uncaused causer”. It doesn’t even establish that this entity is intelligent. You can however say that the entity either contained or created all of the energy (and therefore matter as well) in the Universe. It brings up the question that if the “uncaused causer” was just a single particle (with the ability to either exist forever or create itself) would you call it god? I don’t think many would, the word “god” is associated with the minimum attribute of intelligence. It is a major leap from “uncaused causer” to any of the traditional gods such as Allah or Jehovah.

The most famous Cosmological Arguments were put forward by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica. Three of his Five Ways are Cosmological Arguments, and as Dawkins points out in The God Delusion, “are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress – the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum”. Aquinas makes the assumption that the Universe hasn’t existed in some form forever.

Bertrand Russell suggests that a further angle of attack on Aquinas’ concept of causation might be drawn from quantum physics. Since the 1920s, theoretical physics has raised the question of whether there are indeterminate events taking place at a subatomic, quantum, level that have no cause, including the appearance of the Universe itself. If this is a genuine possibility then it undermines Aquinas’ first premise: the certainty that everything must have a cause.

David Hume offered a further criticism of the Cosmological Argument that undermines Aquinas’ position. Hume argues that if we have explained the cause of each event in the series, then it is unreasonable to ask what caused the whole series. This has become known as the Fallacy of Composition; it is the fallacy of thinking that because there is some property common to each part of a group, this property must apply to the group as a whole. Russell gives an example of this: It is true that every member of the human species as a whole has a mother, but it is a fallacy to conclude from this that our species as a whole must have a mother. Similarly, every event within a series may indeed have a cause, but it is a fallacy to conclude that the whole series must have a cause. If Hume is right, then Aquinas is mistaken in thinking that there must be a first cause that started the chain of cause and effects, and the Cosmological Argument fails.

I think Carl Sagan puts it best when he said that “In many cultures the customary answer [to “how did the Universe come into existence?”] is that a god or gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must, of course, ask the next question: Where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the Universe always existed?”. This brings up Occam’s razor, the idea that the most plausible explanation is the one which uses the least unnecessary entities. The problem with the Cosmological Argument is that god is not needed to explain the Universe.

Michael Zaloom said:

Francis, definitely check out ReasonableFaith.org. Dr. William Lane Craig is the man. Subscribe to his podcast, watch his debates on youtube and on the website. Personally I find the Cosmological argument elegant and effective. It's easy to help someone see the truth in it. 1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2)the universe began to exist. 3)therefore the universe has a cause. There are people who object and say science is investigating other options, but it's real easy to drum home the fact that there was NOTHING "before" the Big Bang - no time, no fluctuating sea of energy (like when they say that atoms come in and out of being uncaused). Anyone can understand it and it rings true with experience.

I have been getting a lot of mileage out of the Moral argument. 1)If God does not exist, objective moral values does not exist. 2)Objective moral values DO exist 3)therefore, God does exist. I love it because atheists and anti-theists just LOVE to point out all the wrong that is in the bible and that the church has done through the ages (slavery being a favorite) but it's great to switch it around and let them know that you agree that those are horrible but on what basis can an atheist say anything is really "wrong"? They may actually admit that it is a social construct, a survival tool, and not truly transcendently right or wrong.

Again, it's not about embarrassing them, though it is about gently shattering their illusions. That's what happens when you listen to too much Richard Dawkins or Hitchens - you get cocky and caught off guard by intelligent christians. God bless and Let me know what you think of ReasonableFaith.org!

[Juanita]

Francis,

In my opinion - your prime challenge is this:

When we only had newtonian laws, people couldn't imagine quantum laws. The principles in one discipline cannot necessarily be applied in another - they can conflict with each other and even contradict each other.

All of your logic assumes that you somehow understand the underlying principles and laws regarding God and his activities. You may be right. Or, you may be wrong. In either case, you cannot know if you are right or wrong. You are left to take your 'best guess.'

As a Christian, I can tell you this for sure - you cannot come to a profound and personal relationship through logic.
As to your point of view on the existance or non-existance of God, in my opinion, if you are like Antony Flew and follow the argument, in honesty to where it leads, you may come to his point of view. I think that process is something that takes time and maturity. If your photo is accutate, you are a young man -full of your wisdom and the wisdom of the world. I was one of those types in my early years. I know far LESS than I did, though I did, in my early years. Life and all in the world is complex - when we think we have a handle on it, we see there is another layer.

Knowing Christ, however, isn't that difficult: Seek him and you will find him.

Francis Thomas said:

Humans are answer seeking animals and we often find it more satisfying to have an answer than to not have one. However, when it comes down to it, the only intellectual answer we can give to questions science hasn’t yet answered is “we don’t know”. The Cosmological Argument seems to be, to some extent, an argument from ignorance: “We don’t know what (if anything) created the Universe, therefore it was god”. This is quite a weak way of criticizing the Cosmological Argument, especially as the Cosmological Argument has worse flaws than this one.

As Victor J Stenger points out in God: The Failed Hypothesis “One sign of a supernatural creation would be a direct empirical confirmation that a miracle was necessary in order to bring the Universe into existence”. Yet we do not see this confirmation. Science has an explanation to the origins of the Universe as we know it, the Big Bang, and this doesn’t rely on supernatural explanations. Originally a derogatory term used to describe the theory by people who believed in a Steady-State Universe. There was no “bang” in the Big Bang, it was a sudden expansion of a singularity which contained all matter and energy in the Universe. Many people ask “What was there before the Big Bang?”. This question doesn’t make any sense since all of the physical laws, space and time were contained within the singularity. The question is like asking someone to go south of the South-pole. The Big Bang answers the main big questions of where did the Universe come from

One of the main problems with the Cosmological Argument is that it tells us nothing about the nature of the “unmoved mover”/ “uncaused causer”. It doesn’t even establish that this entity is intelligent. You can however say that the entity either contained or created all of the energy (and therefore matter as well) in the Universe. It brings up the question that if the “uncaused causer” was just a single particle (with the ability to either exist forever or create itself) would you call it god? I don’t think many would, the word “god” is associated with the minimum attribute of intelligence. It is a major leap from “uncaused causer” to any of the traditional gods such as Allah or Jehovah.

The most famous Cosmological Arguments were put forward by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica. Three of his Five Ways are Cosmological Arguments, and as Dawkins points out in The God Delusion, “are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress – the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum”. Aquinas makes the assumption that the Universe hasn’t existed in some form forever.

Bertrand Russell suggests that a further angle of attack on Aquinas’ concept of causation might be drawn from quantum physics. Since the 1920s, theoretical physics has raised the question of whether there are indeterminate events taking place at a subatomic, quantum, level that have no cause, including the appearance of the Universe itself. If this is a genuine possibility then it undermines Aquinas’ first premise: the certainty that everything must have a cause.

David Hume offered a further criticism of the Cosmological Argument that undermines Aquinas’ position. Hume argues that if we have explained the cause of each event in the series, then it is unreasonable to ask what caused the whole series. This has become known as the Fallacy of Composition; it is the fallacy of thinking that because there is some property common to each part of a group, this property must apply to the group as a whole. Russell gives an example of this: It is true that every member of the human species as a whole has a mother, but it is a fallacy to conclude from this that our species as a whole must have a mother. Similarly, every event within a series may indeed have a cause, but it is a fallacy to conclude that the whole series must have a cause. If Hume is right, then Aquinas is mistaken in thinking that there must be a first cause that started the chain of cause and effects, and the Cosmological Argument fails.

I think Carl Sagan puts it best when he said that “In many cultures the customary answer [to “how did the Universe come into existence?”] is that a god or gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must, of course, ask the next question: Where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the Universe always existed?”. This brings up Occam’s razor, the idea that the most plausible explanation is the one which uses the least unnecessary entities. The problem with the Cosmological Argument is that god is not needed to explain the Universe.

Michael Zaloom said:

Francis, definitely check out ReasonableFaith.org. Dr. William Lane Craig is the man. Subscribe to his podcast, watch his debates on youtube and on the website. Personally I find the Cosmological argument elegant and effective. It's easy to help someone see the truth in it. 1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2)the universe began to exist. 3)therefore the universe has a cause. There are people who object and say science is investigating other options, but it's real easy to drum home the fact that there was NOTHING "before" the Big Bang - no time, no fluctuating sea of energy (like when they say that atoms come in and out of being uncaused). Anyone can understand it and it rings true with experience.

I have been getting a lot of mileage out of the Moral argument. 1)If God does not exist, objective moral values does not exist. 2)Objective moral values DO exist 3)therefore, God does exist. I love it because atheists and anti-theists just LOVE to point out all the wrong that is in the bible and that the church has done through the ages (slavery being a favorite) but it's great to switch it around and let them know that you agree that those are horrible but on what basis can an atheist say anything is really "wrong"? They may actually admit that it is a social construct, a survival tool, and not truly transcendently right or wrong.

Again, it's not about embarrassing them, though it is about gently shattering their illusions. That's what happens when you listen to too much Richard Dawkins or Hitchens - you get cocky and caught off guard by intelligent christians. God bless and Let me know what you think of ReasonableFaith.org!

[Michael Zaloom]

"Dr. Craig...He's got a very high opinion of himself, almost bizarrely so in my opinion (but that's probably just my bias showing). Yet when you hear him talk about subjects for which he has no formal training (evolution, cosmology, science in general, etc) he comes off like a bumbling fool."

Harris, one post in, and you've already lost all intellectual honesty in my eyes. Normally I would shake my head in disbelief for such ignorant comments, but apparently you're in good company. Start at 3:45, or watch the whole performance. (Incredibly, after Craig's response it is COOK who admits that it is HE himself who is unqualified on cosmology argue with Craig, but nonetheless tries to assure us that his view is correct. Hubris on display.)


Francis, quite the opposite of an argument from ignorance, the cosmological argument has been strengthened THE MORE WE LEARN from science. If you studied the reasons for the big bang, you'll know there are scientific evidences and philosophical evidences for a universe with a starting point and against an eternally existing universe. The "Big Bang" marks the creation of all matter, space, energy, and time itself. This requires a being that is immaterial, spaceless, timeless and of unimaginable power to create from nothing. In my opinion, and by definition, there can be no naturalistic explanation for the big bang, because there was nothing materialistic at all in existence "before" the big bang to cause it. Unless you hold to the meta-scientific, incoherent and entirely faith-based belief that the universe somehow brought itself into being out of nothing.

The attempts to explain away are philosophically and scientifically unfounded and without precedent in all of history. And this is not meant to be an argument to the God of the Bible, although it is compatible. It is meant to get you closer in that direction and away from atheism. The other independent arguments form a strong cumulative case which reveal more about God, indeed pointing to the God of the Bible.

And let me clarify: it was late, I was tired, and I glossed over the part saying you were an atheist. Please heed Juanita's plea to seek after God. Let's not gloss over the fact that ultimately this search is about a Person. Explain to him that you have doubts, confess them to him. Express a sincere desire to know him. But do it humbly, actually seeking to know him. Juanita may have other suggestions too, but I'd say read the book of John with an open mind to what the spirit of God has to say about who Jesus is. Also read Romans, Ephesians, etc. and ask him to show himself to you. We'll both be happy to talk to you more about it.

[Francis Thomas]

Actually I my prime challenge to the Cosmological Argument is Occam’s Razor. Either something has existed forever or something came into being by itself, in both situations answering “god” adds an unnecessary step.

None of my logic assumes knowledge of laws regarding God, in fact my logic comes to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. You cannot know if you are right or wrong either, no one can. However, just because we cannot know for certain doesn’t mean we can’t pick the most likely situation.

I presume you use logic in every other aspect of your life; if your car is running low on fuel you wouldn’t assume that magic petrol pixies we going to fill it up for you, you’d fill it up yourself. Why then do you reject logic in this one particular belief? It sounds like special pleading to me…

I am not denying that there are “layers” of the Universe which we are not yet aware of, I doubt they are spiritual but if the evidence points that way then so be it. This brings me back to my previous point about arguments from ignorance; just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we can just make explanations up.


Juanita said:

Francis,
In my opinion - your prime challenge is this:
When we only had newtonian laws, people couldn't imagine quantum laws. The principles in one discipline cannot necessarily be applied in another - they can conflict with each other and even contradict each other.

All of your logic assumes that you somehow understand the underlying principles and laws regarding God and his activities. You may be right. Or, you may be wrong. In either case, you cannot know if you are right or wrong. You are left to take your 'best guess.'

As a Christian, I can tell you this for sure - you cannot come to a profound and personal relationship through logic.
As to your point of view on the existance or non-existance of God, in my opinion, if you are like Antony Flew and follow the argument, in honesty to where it leads, you may come to his point of view. I think that process is something that takes time and maturity. If your photo is accutate, you are a young man -full of your wisdom and the wisdom of the world. I was one of those types in my early years. I know far LESS than I did, though I did, in my early years. Life and all in the world is complex - when we think we have a handle on it, we see there is another layer.

Knowing Christ, however, isn't that difficult: Seek him and you will find him.

[Juanita]

Francis,
I am not being argumentative. I'd just like to comment on this...

You said,
"I presume you use logic in every other aspect of your life...."

Actually, some aspects of my life have to do with logic, some don't. Here are some examples...

- Love... I love my children and the color blue.
- Experience... I feel the sun on my face and understand that this experience produces warm and wonderful feelings.
- Reward... I jump into complex, overwhelming situations to make an impact.

I understand your wanting to look at logic that would indicate God. Not faulting you! I am just passing on that we don't fall in love by logic. Indications of God is in the framework of logic. Experiencing God is in other frameworks. And, interestingly enough - we, as humans, when we experience something not logical or perhaps counterintuitive, our paradigm shifts to accomodate a new way of seeing things.

You are asking questions, I think you may want to know if God exists. It is over-simple, I know. But, I wrote above the best way to know. If it was helpful, use; if not, disregard.

[Francis Thomas]

The Big Bang marks the “creation” of all matter, space, energy and time itself as we know them. There is no reason to think that these didn’t exist in some other form previously (although “previously” really has no meaning when time itself is called into question). Can you elaborate on the term “philosophical evidences” please? I don’t think you have a good concept of what the Big Bang was so I suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs

At this point I feel the need to say that I am aware of the main arguments for the existence of God, an yet remain an atheist. They all fall down on faulty premises or just demonstrably false claims. Can you give me your best argument for the existence of the God of the Bible.

First you need prove to me that such a being exists before I can “explain to him that [I] have doubts, confess them to him. Express a sincere desire to know him. But do it humbly, actually seeking to know him”.

Also regarding the suggestion of reading scripture. I have read many passages from the Old Testament and a some from the New Testament (even some from the Book of Mormon), if anything reading this reinforced my atheism regarding your god.


Michael Zaloom said:

Francis, quite the opposite of an argument from ignorance, the cosmological argument has been strengthened THE MORE WE LEARN from science. If you studied the reasons for the big bang, you'll know there are scientific evidences and philosophical evidences for a universe with a starting point and against an eternally existing universe. The "Big Bang" marks the creation of all matter, space, energy, and time itself. This requires a being that is immaterial, spaceless, timeless and of unimaginable power to create from nothing. In my opinion, and by definition, there can be no naturalistic explanation for the big bang, because there was nothing materialistic at all in existence "before" the big bang to cause it. Unless you hold to the meta-scientific, incoherent and entirely faith-based belief that the universe somehow brought itself into being out of nothing.

The attempts to explain away are philosophically and scientifically unfounded and without precedent in all of history. And this is not meant to be an argument to the God of the Bible, although it is compatible. It is meant to get you closer in that direction and away from atheism. The other independent arguments form a strong cumulative case which reveal more about God, indeed pointing to the God of the Bible.

And let me clarify: it was late, I was tired, and I glossed over the part saying you were an atheist. Please heed Juanita's plea to seek after God. Let's not gloss over the fact that ultimately this search is about a Person. Explain to him that you have doubts, confess them to him. Express a sincere desire to know him. But do it humbly, actually seeking to know him. Juanita may have other suggestions too, but I'd say read the book of John with an open mind to what the spirit of God has to say about who Jesus is. Also read Romans, Ephesians, etc. and ask him to show himself to you. We'll both be happy to talk to you more about it.

[Francis Thomas]

There is nothing wrong with being argumentative, after all we wouldn’t have gotten very far if we accepted what anyone told us without questioning them.

Wouldn’t you agree that there is an inherent reason why you love your children and the colour blue? Love is an emotion like any other and is contained within our brains. We can examine the biological and chemical causes for such emotions and so we can better understand them.

You are using logic to come to the conculsion that the Sun produces “warm and wonderful feelings”. Again if we look at human physiology we learn that humans need sunlight in order to produce vitamins.

I don’t see how jumping into “complex, overwhelming situations to make an impact” is illogical.


Juanita said:

Francis,
I am not being argumentative. I'd just like to comment on this... You said,
"I presume you use logic in every other aspect of your life...."

Actually, some aspects of my life have to do with logic, some don't. Here are some examples...

- Love... I love my children and the color blue.
- Experience... I feel the sun on my face and understand that this experience produces warm and wonderful feelings.
- Reward... I jump into complex, overwhelming situations to make an impact.

I understand your wanting to look at logic that would indicate God. Not faulting you! I am just passing on that we don't fall in love by logic. Indications of God is in the framework of logic. Experiencing God is in other frameworks. And, interestingly enough - we, as humans, when we experience something not logical or perhaps counterintuitive, our paradigm shifts to accomodate a new way of seeing things.

You are asking questions, I think you may want to know if God exists. It is over-simple, I know. But, I wrote above the best way to know. If it was helpful, use; if not, disregard.

[Juanita]

>>>

You are so smart. Not being condescending. LOL. But, my point is that you won't find a relationship with God that way. Why? Because He said. So... using logic

EITHER

1. He said and it is the way it is. If that is the case, then you can't get to God through your approach.

OR.

2. He doesn't exist and someone wrote things and ascribed them to 'God said.' In that case, God may or may not exist and you may be able to find out with your approach.

So? Do your have a coin? You could flip it. How about heads = 1 & tails = 2?

J/k.

Francis Thomas said:

There is nothing wrong with being argumentative, after all we wouldn’t have gotten very far if we accepted what anyone told us without questioning them.

Wouldn’t you agree that there is an inherent reason why you love your children and the colour blue? Love is an emotion like any other and is contained within our brains. We can examine the biological and chemical causes for such emotions and so we can better understand them.

You are using logic to come to the conculsion that the Sun produces “warm and wonderful feelings”. Again if we look at human physiology we learn that humans need sunlight in order to produce vitamins.

I don’t see how jumping into “complex, overwhelming situations to make an impact” is illogical.


Juanita said:

Francis,
I am not being argumentative. I'd just like to comment on this... You said,
"I presume you use logic in every other aspect of your life...."

Actually, some aspects of my life have to do with logic, some don't. Here are some examples...

- Love... I love my children and the color blue.
- Experience... I feel the sun on my face and understand that this experience produces warm and wonderful feelings.
- Reward... I jump into complex, overwhelming situations to make an impact.

I understand your wanting to look at logic that would indicate God. Not faulting you! I am just passing on that we don't fall in love by logic. Indications of God is in the framework of logic. Experiencing God is in other frameworks. And, interestingly enough - we, as humans, when we experience something not logical or perhaps counterintuitive, our paradigm shifts to accomodate a new way of seeing things.

You are asking questions, I think you may want to know if God exists. It is over-simple, I know. But, I wrote above the best way to know. If it was helpful, use; if not, disregard.