As I’m sure my readers will agree, in my last post, There’s No Arguing It: We Can’t KNOW If There’s a God or Not, I conclusively proved that it is exactly as reasonable to think that there is a God as it is to think there’s not. Not one of the 50 or so people who commented on that post questioned the validity of that assertion. (I’m kidding. I actually think Atheists of America have taken out a hit on me.)
Now watch how easily — nay, how inevitably — one must move from the understanding that there’s at least a 50/50 chance of a God existing, to the conclusion that Christianity is the greatest religion in the history of people yearning for spiritual succor.
My blog posts are always too long, so I’m going to keep brief the logical steps from Probable God to Christ. Those steps are:
1. There’s a 50% chance that God is real (which has already been proven).
2. If there’s a God, then God created everything, including humans.
3. If God created humans, God must love humans, because who doesn’t love what they create?
4. God loving humans means God longs to express his love to humans, because it is the nature of love to express itself.
5. God is prohibited from in any direct or overt manner conveying to humans his love for them, because if he objectified himself in the way that would necessitate – if he just appeared to people, and told them that he loved them — then he would ruin their lives by obliterating their free will, by robbing of them their right to choose for themselves whether or not to believe in him. (For more about this particular dynamic, please see my, Why Doesn’t God Just Prove He Exists?) It is precisely God’s love for people (that is, for the qualilty that most wholly defines people, which is their free will) that stops God from proving to people that he loves them as much as he does.
6. People feel guilty all the time for the stupid, petty, selfish, greedy, ego-driven things they do. Feeling guilty is a necessary result of free will, since free will means that in life one is bound to make stupid, petty, selfish, greedy, ego-driven choices.
7. God hates it that people suffer from guilt. And he certainly understands that feeling guilty and feeling unlovable are intimately connected. He also hates it that people’s lives are defined by fear (which they must be, since no one knows what happens to them after they die).
8. God wanted a way to prove his love for people, relieve them of their guilt, and put to rest their fears about their ultimate fate.
9. Becoming the mortal known to history as Jesus Christ is how God accomplished all three of those things — and how he did it all without compromising anyone’s free will. He proved his love for people by becoming a human, taking into his body all the guilt all people ever had or would experience, and then slaughtered that guilt into oblivion. And he put to rest people’s fears about their ultimate fate by explicitly promising everlasting life to anyone who believed in him (which, remember, he had to make part of the deal in order to leave in tact people’s free will). God spent 2,000 years telling everyone he was going to come to earth to do exactly what he did; he did it; and then he went back from whence he’d come.
10. Before finally taking his bodily leave of us, God installed within every human the whole of himself, in the form of the Holy Spirit. All anyone has to do to awaken and access that Holy Spirit is believe that that’s possible, and ask for it. God never enters where he’s not first asked.
And thus, in 10 E-Z Steps, do we have positive, irrefutable prove that believing in the reality of the Christian story makes at least as much sense as not believing in it.
God—>creation—>humans—>love of humans—>respecting humans’ free will—>wanting to relieve humans’ guilt and fear—>Jesus—>Holy Spirit.
See, atheists? We’re at least as rational as you!
And I know you agree! Which is so great!!
Just out: UNFAIR: Why the “Christian” View of Gays Doesn’t Work (softcover edition; Kindle edition; NookBook edition). Like/join my Facebook page. Join the Unfundamentalist Christians.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 114 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
uuuhhhh… You were being tongue-in-cheek weren’t you John?
Me? Tongue-in-cheek? Never. It makes people look at you funny on the bus.
Yes. The final comment was TiC.
Your luck Mr. Shore!! I was going to refute this from step one, then I realized you were being tongue-in-cheek.
I will leave my retort at http://johnshore.com/2008/02/28/theres-no-arg…
You are so right Angela, and we should always be ready with a defense for our faith… but we also have to remember the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are… well you know the rest.
We cannot expect the natural, unregenerate mind to understand spiritual things. Ever. Without faith, no man can please God. It's impossible… as impossible as it can get.
There are people who search for other people to argue with while referring to common fallacies from logic handbooks and indeed probably sleep with them under their pillow hoping to absorb (by osmosis overnight) every bit of knowledge in logic they didn't get in their waking hours… but they will never have the peace they seek – the peace of knowing The Utter and Complete Truth. Those who put all their trust in their own fallible, depraved human minds will be disappointed every time.
Selah.
Faith . . . means never having to prove what you believe.
Why all this arguing? Because those who believe are trying to prove that what they believe is real. If you feel that you have to prove it, then I wonder how much faith you have.
Jesus said, "Whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal life." He did not ask us to prove it.
I aaume you had your tongue in cheek when you so cheerily detailed a rational defense of Christianity. I assume you never studied the history of the church or read the Bible critically or read studies like Who Wrote the Bible, A History of God, etc.
I can accept the Christians who take pride in believing the unbelievable, but to argue that there is a rational reason for belief in god becoming human is a bit too much. Revel in your definance of reason, but don't insult reason by prostituting it to religion.
I am a reluctan atheist because there is no rational way of believing in the fabulous myth of a god becoming human. It was great while I could believe it, but there is plenty in the real world to pacify our need for awe and gratitude.
Is there a place where I can look and see the score for this on going debate? What quarter are we in? Will there be a trophy?
My view is this, after listening to all your “arguments” and comments.
If you don’t want God to be real, “intellectualize” Him and anything that has to do with him. Atheists desire to be right all the time, in most philosophical discussions. As Pilate said, (to Jesus – Truth looked him right in the face) “What is Truth?
Well, Truth died on the Cross, Rose from the dead, Showed himself to more than 500 humans and then Ascended to Heaven.
To Atheists, this is just a “fairy-tale” for “christians” to believe in so they can have a “crutch”. What does the Atheist have for his “Crutch”?
His intellectual prowess – human wisdom that changes with the tide of opinion anyway. Atheists desire that rational thinking prevail – that’s reasonable! But they won’t see the Truth if it stood in front of them.. (They like to swallow camels.)
By the way, atheists, without the Holy Spirit actually dwelling inside the human being…all you got are just “ideas”. So you like to tell christians, “surely you jest”, you aren’t intellectually honest!
You say to us, “You’re just sheep following a perceived idea that there is a God. I read that one of you keeeps calling God, “it” instead of God being a person. If He’s a person, then you need to really investigate who He really is and not in just intellectual ways. Intelligence is fine to use but it can border on the “delusional” without facts. Darwin worshipped dinosaurs in his evolutionary thoughts.. Isn’t it true that dinosaurs are more “accepted” in your society than Jesus Christ whom most atheists I know and have heard – swear at His name! Real tolerance and diversity? Phew!! Surely you jest,eh?
Athiests, do you want to be just like an animal without “Love” and eat your young? Pretty barbaric in your thinking, I would say.
Atheists, try finding out the TRUTH (JESUS) while you live on this planet before you have to physically die one day and THEN FACE HIM AND “BOW YOUR KNEE TO TRUTH”….Go ahead and deny God or placate him with your works, intellect, religion, or whatever method you wish, you have “FREE CHOICE” ! WHAT IS YOUR TRUTH ?
Cartoons of the 1950′s, 1960′s, and 1970′s make more sense than Evolution or the “Hidden Ancient Secrets” that titillate those of you who are only on the “intellectual” dream world Merry-go-Round….
I never said he did, nver said you have to, just talked about what I believe. I wasn’t even TRYING to say that he believed in ‘my’ personal God. That WASN’T the issue.
Your issue ‘seems’ to be that if any of us merely name the name of Christ or simply discuss in general, we are automatically after you, trying to force something down your throat, we are delusional mythicists, and totally mindless if we happen to quote a scripture verse. We see phrases like “Did you use leeches to cure diseases, or were they still considered demon-caused in your day?” (not yours). I find it difficult to perceive such pure vitriol from believers except in your imagination(s). I didn’t say you haven’t been criticised, but that hatred and contempt expressed with the ‘pen’ seems to NOT be the tendency of believers in here. This observation I think true even if I were merely an impartial observer.
breezy: I'm glad you laughed at the leeches joke. I'm acerbic, but I try to inject humor whenever I can. If it rattles some cages, all the better!
I guess you and I simply have different ideas of what "theory" means in scientific terms. Evolution meets the definition I was taught, and creationism doesn't. I guess the multi-billion dollar evolution industry has unfairly influenced that, and luckily for us you've broken yourself free from those shackles.
If anyone is interested, wikipedia has excellent articles on the scientific method, and the difference between theories, hypothesis, and simple WAGs. But be warned: by the definitions cited there, creationism can barely be considered a hypothesis, and is nowhere near a theory. I'd personally classify it as a WAG.
I spent 8 1/2 years in the Army myself. I wasn't there to defend your religion; I find your religion indefensible. But I was there, like your son, to defend your right to follow that religion. Christians don't have exclusive use rights on morality, ethics, family or patriotism (and I know you didn't say they did, but I thought I'd mention that for those who haven't learned that yet.)
By the way, for those of you who've bought into the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes", I have news for you: I was one, and there were two others in my unit that I knew of, when we were in Iraq the first time.
"Your issue ’seems’ to be that if any of us merely name the name of Christ or simply discuss in general, we are automatically after you, trying to force something down your throat, we are delusional mythicists, and totally mindless if we happen to quote a scripture verse."
When have I said you were after me?
You make comments I view as silly, and I call you on it. And you respond with things along the line of "Well, wait one day and you'll be on your knees begging not to go to hell". And so I'll call those what they are…threats and appeals to emotion.
If you don't like having your tactics called for what they are, I'm sorry.
One of the problems is that Christians are in the majority in this country. That fact in itself isn't a problem, but it's a problem because Christians in general are used to being able to say whatever they like and not have it questioned.
And so now, when it's getting more socially acceptable to question such things, those questionings and responses are labeled as hatred, contempt, emotional outbursts and the like.
I don't hate you Dan. I feel sorry that you view the world in such a negative light. I feel sorry that you reject many things that are factually based merely because they go against your superstitions. But I don't hate you. Or any Christian or other religious believer.
But there are many things in your religion that I think negatively effect society, and so I will speak out against them and actively oppose such things when certain Christians try to enforce their beliefs on others.
Dan,
Stick to what you suggested to Andy, let God's spirit guide you in truth and love. I love morse (he's the same age as my oldest boys) and Rob and Chris because their rebuttals keep me on my toes and also verify more of The Word (I wonder what they would say about the revelation that Jesus Christ is The Word – not the written words between the covers of the bible) The secret is that the bible was not written for those who do not believe.
The truth is I have physically placed myself between harm and my child and that child is now a corporal in the USMC putting himself in harms way to protect the right of these men who feel free to disrespect others views…ironic isn't it. I have been in countries where disrespecting the 'State' sanctioned religion can result in imprisonment or death. Thank God our parents gave birth to us here in the United States.
I have supplied blankets, clothes, goats (to not so illiterate) goat herders and (non-leech containing) medicines and never once made "listening to a sermon" a prerequisite for assistance. Rather I always respectfully asked if they had an interest in hearing the good news (which is simply that God is going to establish His government on earth to right all the wrongs that have occured). May God's will always be done, Stay strong in Christ brother, with love in His name, Breezy
I'm sorry Rob, what was your Phd in again? Scientific theory is simply a theory that explains scientific observations.
Since scientific theories must be falsifiable then it follows that the theory of creation is such because the theory of evolution has done so. Postulating scientific theory is not rocket science Rob (sorry scientist humor)
btw, were you not breast fed? (I wonder what Freud would have to say about your posts?)
you'll have to excuse me for a few hours as I have to find some frog livers to add to the elixar I'm preparing, fill my oil lamps before dark and make sure I have enough leeches to use in surgery tomorrow. (gotta give ya kudos Rob, that one had me laughing so hard I almost spit up my V-8)
Exactly Dan C. Which means he didn't believe in your god any more than we do.
" I think Albert Eistein would feel very angry if he knew that a creationist/ider/whatever you are misused his quotes to make a vague point in a blog."
I think my point was misunderstood and definitely not vague. The point is this: It appears that although Einstein did not believe in a 'personal' God he did believe in an 'impersonal' creator God.
That was it – no persuasion intented, no agenda, no hatred or disparagment – as Joe Friday would say "Just the facts".
Regardless of to whom Marcy made her last comments, the combination of biblical truth and heartfelt compassion is evident.
Marcy: see, you still try to use a book I don't believe in (or particular respect) to show why there's just no way I could avoid loving and obeying a god that I find atrocious (even if it did exist.) I agree with you on one thing though: it is disappointing that I can't engage in intelligent discussion with you, but you aren't giving me a lot to work with. If you keep repeating the same mistakes, I find it hard to stay patient.
Hey, if you think your "loving" god is justified in commanding and committing genocide, and you can live with that, that's your problem. Christians are supposed to be better than everyone else when it comes to morality and such, but I've been aware for a long time that simply isn't true. Christians like you simply stand as a reminder of that fact.
And yes, I do know Christians who reject those acts as coming from a loving god, and simply realize that their Bible is full of contradictions that can't be resolved. They readily admit to following a shmorgashboard Christianity and make no apologies for it. They may not be consistent, but at least they come closer to rationality.
You don't see the immaturity in obeying a mean, spiteful god? Well, that's a shocker. You can doubt all you like whether or not I'd obey such a god, in the unlikely event that it existed. I suppose if it were real and had the power, it could force me to do it's evil bidding like it forced Saul and David and others (but of course it didn't; that's just simple mythology), but it could never force me to worship it.
Marcy, your tortured logic and faulty reasoning, not to mention your willingness to defend evil in the name of your god, will always hurt my brain. It's not just you, though; there are many like you, and I've become less sensitive to it over the years. However, some things (like the post of yours that I wrote that about) just pack a bit more punch than usual. Your latest response is objectively probably just as bad, but again, I grow less sensitive to it with exposure.
breezy: you're absolutely right that my "rude and often inflamatory statements" aren't necessary in civil, intelligent discourse. That's why you'll rarely see me be rude or inflamatory if I'm having discourse with intelligent, civil people. John Shore, for instance, appears mostly civil, and usually intelligent, but few of the cheerleaders responding here have shown those same traits. Flowery, god-filled language doesn't hide the insulting, condescending attitude of many of you Christians, and I usually play to the competition. In other words, what you see in me in these discussions is just a mirror of what I see in you.
No scientists who practice the scientific method will describe evolution as anything more than a scientific theory. But any "scientist" who describes creationism as a scientific theory obviously doesn't know how the word "theory" is used in science. Or they do understand and deliberately use it in a false way (I'm thinking of Dwayne Gish Michael Behe here, but I still haven't decided if they're just completely ignorant, completely fraudulent, or a combination of the two.)
You claim to have been a scientist longer than someone else (I forget who you said that to) has been alive; you must be very, very old indeed to have such an outdated view of what science is. Did you use leeches to cure diseases, or were they still considered demon-caused in your day?
breezy: Give me something to laugh and post here some of the names of the "scientists" which "also describe creation as a scientific theory"…
Have you ever bothered to think what the criteria are which a theory must fullfil in order to be scientific ? Ask yourself if "creation" is for example falsifiable or if it makes any predictions ….
born4battle : I think Albert EInstein would feel very angry if he knew that a creationist/ider/whatever you are misused his quotes to make a vague point in a blog
cheers
Marcy and breezy – Kudos to you both!
Bravo Marcy, your even tone and cross references are superb. Many non-believers who have claimed to read the bible actually get their 'facts' from other non-believers. Their opinions therefore are a bit skewed.
I tend to read John's blogs (which I find humorous and thought provoking at the same time) and leave a comment if I'm so inclined….many hours later I'll come back to find a plethora of comments and a paucity of knowledge.
Speaking of….Rob, your rude and often inflamatory statements are unneccesary in civil, intelligent discourse. I stated that "All scientists understand that discounting evolutionary theory will cost billions in grants, thus affecting other scientific venues and studies" which is a fact so I'm not sure what your (snicker) was about?
Were you asking me if I was embarrassed in personally knowing other scientists who refute the evolutionary model of origins? No, I can't say that I am. (remember, I gave no 'link' to support my statements -because it is my actual experience)
I'm very proud to know scientists who practice the scientific method and do not describe evolution as anything more than a scientific theory. They also describe creation as a scientific theory. And this is where non-believers should focus…they are both theories which need to be equally studied and are not.
"Now watch how easily — nay, how inevitably — one must move from the understanding that there’s at least a 50/50 chance of a God existing, to the conclusion that Christianity is the greatest religion in the history of people yearning for spiritual succor."
Sorry John – gotta disagree with you. I think there are a few other religions that are better. Your God is a little mean and capricious (which is somewhat typical of most Gods). But what is worse, seems to have issues with sex and having fun.
Plus, there is the whole issue of "believe in me or go to hell". i guess that may be fair for those who have actually heard of that God… but what about those who haven't? it is not like he clued everyone in when he came to earth (or sent an avatar, depending on what you believe). The people he didn't bother to contact were just "out of luck". Did they not matter? Did he really love just some of "his people" and not care much for the others?
Rob,
I'm disappointed you find it necessary to resort to insults rather than intelligent discussion.
First, my statements about what happens when God appears to people in His full glory are well attested in the Bible and accepted by the majority of Christian scholars. God told Moses, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence . . . . But . . . you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (Ex. 33:20) And when Isaiah, a righteous prophet, saw the Lord, he cried out, "Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips . . . and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty." Angels and demons do have the ability to see God and still deny Him – see Job 1:6. But in the Bible, people can only survive in the presence of God in all His glory when He provides them with special grace (as in the case of Isaiah). You can call this nonsense if you like, but I definitely did not simply make it up.
As for God's "atrocities," I believe you are still ignoring the reasons for them. These were not "atrocities," as if He somehow attacked totally innocent people and viciously murdered them. Rather, these were incredibly wicked people. Take a look again at the passage you referenced in I Samuel 15. Yes, God says He was judging the Amalekites for what they did to Israel 400 years before. But does it say what they were doing at the time? For 400 years, these people had been involved in their own atrocities – killing the innocent, sacrificing babies to their idols, repeatedly invading Israel ("they camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel . . . They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts . . . (they) impoverished the Israelites" Judges 6:5, 6), and more. And many years later, the fact that Saul had not wiped them out completely came back to almost destroy the entire nation of Israel, through Haman, in the book of Esther, who was an Amalekite. (By the way, I don't shrug off God's judgements as "well, they must have been bad" – if you read about the cultures God judged, you'll find they were indeed terribly cruel and vicious; and God was gracious to cultures – such as the Kenites in the I Samuel 15 passage – who were even moderately decent.)
I don't hate people, and neither does my God; in fact, He "wants all people to come to a knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4). But when people are desperately wicked and bent on the real, horrible atrocities, He will have them destroyed in order to put a stop to those things. (Incidentally, I've read the Bible many times, since I was a child, and I don't remember anywhere that God tells his people to rip babies out of pregnant mothers' wombs – though there were many among the really wicked nations such as Assyria who did that sort of thing.)
And I don't buy your statement that willingness to obey when you come to know the truth is asinine. If you say to yourself, as you apparently do, "Even if God Himself were to appear to me, I wouldn't worship and obey Him," you can be sure you are not willing to obey. Thus, I wouldn't expect you to know the truth (apart from God somehow being gracious enough to reveal it to you in spite of yourself – He does do that sometimes, but not often). Those who say, instead, "OK; I have a lot of doubts, and I don't even think I believe in You, God; but if you're really there, make that clear to me, and I will obey" – those people will know the truth. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the immaturity in that. It seems to me the mature person isn't threatened by the possibility they could be wrong; they are willing to be open to other options and to try to see how someone else's worldview holds together.
Sorry if I made your brain hurt again.
Rob #63: It is about as unverifiable as my telling you about what my friend Ralph did for me. Would like to meet him? I mean God? Actually, Christians do not have to prove to anyone God exists. No Christian proved it to themselves. God proved it to them, us, me. When God makes Himself known to you, the argument is over–the test is what will you do about it.
Morse,
I think Dan is saying that you constantly make assertions that are not true.
“Nor do scientists” you said this and it is not true.
Yes, there are scientist that have agreed with that view. On the whole, however, there are many who do not. I CAN make that claim because I have been a scientist for longer than you have been alive.
Unfortunately scientific study, just like many of our social projects, depends on tax dollars. All scientists understand that discounting evolutionary theory will cost billions in grants, thus affecting other scientific venues and studies. So some (not all) are not vocally opposed to the continued study of evolution, even if they are intellectually so.
← Older Comments
{ 1 trackback }