As we all know, the answer to the question of whether or not there’s a God can generate lots o’ debate. (As they did/are in my last two posts, An Atheist Asks: Why Did Christ Have to Sacrifice Himself to Himself? and Inquiring Atheists Want to Know: What, Exactly, Was the Sacrifice Jesus Made?) So I thought I’d say this:
The answer to the question of whether or not there’s a God can only be yes or no, right? Either some Divine Intelligence created and sustains our world and us, or Nature Alone exists.
Passions aside, there is no way of knowing — in any sort of objective, empirically verifiable way — which of those two it is. Anyone who claims there is a way to positively know whether or not there’s a God must be understood to have at some point become irrational. (No offense, fellow Christians, but we must acknowledge that the Bible isn’t proof that our God exists. The Bible is an informing affirmation of the God in which we believe. I think we’d all do very well to remember that feeling certain that something is true doesn’t make it true.)
Because the chances of God existing are even either way, and because none of us can know which of the two choices available to us is the correct one, then choosing one of them must make exactly as much sense as choosing the other. It’s a 50-50, binary option. You could be right either way. Same as flipping a coin. Could be heads. Could be tails.
Could be a God. Could be no God. Could be complex and coincidental mechanics. Could be supremely intelligent design.
Your call!
And nobody else’s!
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 156 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 4 5 6
John Shore, It is not a "50-50 binary option." That is like saying your chances of winning the lottery are 50-50, either you win or you don't, but we know that chances of winning the the lottery are far less than 50-50.
@ Determined Disciple – don't know if you routinely keep checking back here, but wanted to thank you very much for your comments (excellent!)and for the lead to Paul Sheppard and Enduring Truth.
The links here in the comments didn't work for me, so I did a search and found him that way (on Oneplace.com).
I know that I am way late into this thread, but since I enjoy your writing, I guess I might be around a while annoying you with non-believing thoughts. It is likely my observation has already been represented in this thread. Sorry for not reading all the comments.
John said:
For our purposes, this is correct.
John said:
Nope. Let's say you walk into a strange house, in a strange town and go into the kitchen. You see a drawer. You can argue that it is a 50-50 chance that there is something in that drawer…could be something, could be nothing. You CANNOT say that there is a 50-50 chance that the drawer is either empty, or there is an antique, silver, bone-handled ice cream scoop engraved with the initial 'Y'.
On the matter of God, it can be argued that there is a 50-50 chance of some intelligence. For our purposes, I will say that this is a valid argument (It is not). This can only take you to the deist position. It says nothing of the motives, actions, or involvement of that intelligence. Attributing specific traits and actions and thoughts to that intelligence is like saying the likelihood of finding the rare ice-cream scoop is just as likely as finding a fork.
Just because neither position is provable does not make each position equally likely.
Try this link instead: http://www.enduringtruth.org/pages/page.asp?page_…
Brad, not trying to offend — simply trying to distinguish between people who rely solely on their bodies and minds to decide what to believe and people who simply believe. I personally know the *intellectual* type — I have often been confronted by *intellectuals* who pride themselves on their mental faculties and who believe that if a concept is not supported by concrete evidence (more on that later) in this world, then it's a fallacy. In my opening statement, I meant to establish that even people who are completely capable of reasoning through an issue from an intellectual/LOGICAL standpoint may also accept the Lord's existence (in all forms — Omnipotent Author of Life, Holy Spirit, and Jesus the Christ).
You seem to assume that Believers have never considered the "What if" side of faith: What if there is no God? What if the Bible is just a fabulous piece of literature? What if there is no afterlife? There are, indeed, some Christians who have not yet faced such a crisis of faith that they truly question everything. I have, on several occasions, and many — perhaps even most — of my fellow Christian "brothers and sisters" have faced this crisis, as well. My faith is no "reaction," as you call it. And no, saying that I "see God" is not a way to "rationalize belief to myself." I don't need to rationalize belief to myself. On the contrary, when I entertained the possibility of there not being anything beyond the natural world that I could experience with all 5 of my 19+ senses, I was spiritually "yanked" back into faith. I did NOT want to believe. No, I "see God" because I have faith, AND I have faith because I "see God."
I don't deride anything that will cause me to think differently. I speak the truth. Satan's tactic has been, from his first experiment, to "logic" a person out of *mindless* obedience. If "speaking to a believer can actually take them out of many beliefs," then that believer is not solid in his/her faith yet. You can talk to me all day long. You're not going to talk me out of my faith.
Again, if/when you're blessed to experience Faith as a divine grace, you'll get what I'm saying. My faith is neither blind nor wishful. It is solid because the Lord Himself sustains it within me. I can use as much "logic" as a non-believer to support my reasons for my faith, but of course, my "logic" arises from the God-given conviction that His Word is true.
DeterminedDisciple, is your opening statement trying to offend? Are you saying some of us are just trying to be *intellectuals* here?
Speaking to a believer [in Christianity/theism/religion] can actually take them out of many beliefs. The fundamental weapon is questioning, questioning your feelings and doubts, your reasons and ideas, yourself and your peers. This does not mean never accepting, it means honest thinking, not just wishful or blind.
Our world is inspiring, meaningful, beautiful, and so on, but why do you think this necessitates a person who decided on it all? This is a question for theists to think about. If it’s your initial reaction, and you think your reaction is caused by a ghost, then perhaps you should think about it instead of just reacting. Saying that you “see God” and that it’s all the proof you need to be certain is a way to rationalize belief to yourself and others, but it is a defensive barrier to skepticism, an escape from justification. And of course, you deride anything that may cause you to think differently: “[...] logic, a frequent bedfellow of Satan.”
P.S. Could you get a working link DD? I’m curious about Sheppard’s explanations of the Christian god.
« 1 … 4 5 6
{ 3 trackbacks }