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!!
Additional Reading in Christian Issues...
- From hell to Crazy Town
- They’re here; they’re queer; they’ve plenty to fear: LGBT students form secret club at conservative Christian university [now including updates]
- When evil is serious, it reaches for a Bible and cross
- Guest post: “A Good Week to Hate Christians”
- From gay-hating fundie to righteously angry lesbian. Now what?
![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
Newer Comments →
“Everything in nature is just too complex for there not to have been some sort of intelligence behind it all”
Well, that’s lovely, but I don’t take that statement to be true. Nor do scientists.
But let’s pretend for a moment that it is true.
That intelligence must be more complex than the nature it created. So what’s the intelligence behind the intelligence? And the intelligence behind the intelligence behind the intelligence? And the intelligence behind…?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein… contains an excellent and well documented discussion concerning Einstein's beliefs about God. It seems a matter of reading plain English and various quotations that Einstein believed in God, just not a 'personal' God:
"So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist – a believer in an impersonal creator God:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Morse, I missed the exact citation you used…oh…it wasn't there!
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 400; and Jammer 2002, 97).
“My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior Spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.” (Einstein 1936, as cited in Dukas and Hoffmann 1979, 66).
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” (Einstein 1936, as cited in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1979, 33).
That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a Universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” (Einstein, as cited in Denis Brian, Einstein: A Life, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, 186).
That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a Universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” (Einstein, as cited in Denis Brian, Einstein: A Life, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, 186).
Re: #87, Morse
Haha, OK then, the big bang didn't /create/ space, all the matter/energy just suddenly began to take up space that didn't exist before the Big Bang then. See the astrophysics definition for a singularity.
Also, the laws of Physics as we know them doesn't apply to the beginning and earliest parts of the Big Bang – mostly because the Big Bang violates them.
As I've said, Daniel, if a god made itself known to me and it turned out to be the god of your Bible (as unlikely as that is), I would have to believe but I would not worship that god at all. I'm still flabbergasted that not only do you (I mean all Christians, not just you personally) worship that god, but you're willing to admit it in public. Either you don't know what you're worshiping (which means you haven't read the Bible closely), or you do know and that makes you potentially dangerous. I guess ignorant worship would be preferable to knowledgeable worship.
If that god were not the Bible god, I still may not worship it. It would depend on if it could show itself worthy of being worshiped. Maybe a collection of plagiarized tales from ancient, ignorant sheep-herders would do the trick. Or not.
Uh oh, Dan C, guess what? I looked up the figures myself and it looks like once again some Christian has been caught with his pants down (maybe a Catholic?), caught lying to you again. This must get frustrating.
Here's a link that you might find interesting regarding that 1998 survey:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm The interesting thing to notice is that this is the Larson/Witham study that you reference, but it seems to say the exact opposite of what you think it does. Rats, huh?
And I hate to break it to you, but any list of "scientists who believe in god" that starts with Albert Einstein has to leave a lot to be desired, for the thinking person.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
Al is often deliberately misquoted and misrepresented by fine, upstanding Christians who think nothing of lying for their god. They continuously ignore Al's own plea to stop lying about him and misquoting him. When Al used the word "god", he meant it in a way completely the opposite of petty, religious myths like Christianity (and Judaism). But you already knew that, didn't you Dan?
I can only suspect that a good many of the other scientists listed at the website you link to are similarly misquoted (deliberately so, no doubt.) You should check your sources a little more closely.
Oh, and breezy, how embarrassing for you, huh? (snicker) You even trot out the "they'll lose tons of money from the evolutionist camp" standard. HA!
"The Big Bang created Space and therefore also Time."
The Big Bang created nothing. It was the expansion of a singularity that was made of all the energy/matter that exists in our universe. 2nd law of thermodynamics, if I remember correctly, supports that.
"The Christian faith is a reasonable, factual faith. It’s no more magical than a self-organizing universe."
No it isn't. The Christian faith submits that there is already something even more complex than the universe that had to exist before the universe. Much simpler is that the universe always existed, in one form or another.
Not to mention the fact that if something is factual and reasonable, it's not faith.
So?
What I stated was my belief. Yes, that's right, just a belief. Nothing more. Because we don't know, I have to believe something. So I settle with the answer that seems to make the most sense to me, and disbelieve the answers that seem ridiculous.
I hope we know in my lifetime and I get to find out the truth.
@ Morse, #82
It's not called space/time for nothing. The Big Bang created Space and therefore also Time. According to Einstein's equations space and time are irrevocably linked. The big bang started out as zero space, therefore also zero time.
The Big Bang is an informational singularity – we can't know what lays beyond it. With a lack of information you must fill that void with faith. You have faith that a purely natural cause began the Big Bang, yes? So you label God "magical" to make it appear silly, when in fact there's no rational reason that God couldn't have been behind the big bang – they are both a matter of faith. The Christian faith is a reasonable, factual faith. It's no more magical than a self-organizing universe.
"And before that, the universe existed."
Wasn't that the Steady State Theory that was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, but has had a decreasing number of supporters since the late 1960s with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation and has only a vary small number of supporters today?
"Unfortunately scientific study, just like many of our social projects, depends on tax dollars. "
And isn't it strange how the Discovery Institute is getting billions in private donations, and yet seems to be accomplishing little? Hmmm…wonder if that has to do with the money, or the fact that they have no scientific standing?
By all means Breezy, if you have one piece of evidence for intelligent design or creationism (note, I say for ID…not against evolution), then I'll be happy to hear it.
Raeliyah-
"So even if you disagree with Schroeder’s (or Dan’s) wording, if you believe in the Big Bang then you believe in a First Cause."
Incorrect. My understanding of cosmology is that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang. Not that nothing happened before the Big Bang.
Did something cause the Big Bang? Almost certainly. And before that, the universe existed, in one form or another. It doesn't seem that hard to believe. Much more plausible than some sort of magical creature causing everything.
Project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_pr…
In an effort to encourage friendly but intelligent discourse, I was trying to be nice, Breezy. SOmetimes It is difficult for me to maintain objectivity because I am passionate about what I personally believe. My backround is nowhere scientific, so thanks for your input – it is personally encouraging!
@Morse: That's basically the refutation to the First Cause argument – that there must be a cause behind the cause behind the cause, etc. And so there must be an intelligence that caused the intelligence that caused the intelligence, etc… yes?
Causation is a function of time, however. So you can have a First Cause (or a First Intelligence) if time is only infinite in one direction (forward). At least in Christian theology, God exists outside of time – he is the First Cause because causation didn't exist before him. God is outside the time-line, so it's nonsensical to talk about Before God or After God – or Before Time or After Time with regards to him.
For a historical perspective, atheists (or agnostics or nontheists or whatever) throughout time have maintained that the universe is infinite. This tracks back to at least Aristotle if not farther. This whole idea was based on the prediction that all processes were stable or would eventually cancel each other out. This idea died with Einstein, and observations that the universe is not 100% stable.
The Big Bang was first suggested by Georges Lemaitre, a roman catholic priest, who proposed that the universe began as a single primeval atom. Since we can't know what happened before the big bang (if anything) and the theory of multiple big bangs and big crunches (the Yo-Yo universe) was recently contradicted by observable evidence – then it is a given that our universe has at least a Finite Beginning – the timeline isn't a line, it's a ray, extending forward from a single point.
As Gerald Schroeder said, "The question is not whether or not the physical universe had a metaphysical cause – that is a given. The question is whether or not that cause still cares and interacts with the universe it created."
So even if you disagree with Schroeder's (or Dan's) wording, if you believe in the Big Bang then you believe in a First Cause.
-Raeliyah, lurker.
"Some scientists – some."
99% of biologists is 'some scientists'?
"However, the list of scientists who dissent from Darwin’s theory seems to be growing."
Have you heard of Project Steve? In response to a list of PhD's who support creationism (note, PhDs, not necessarily scientists), another organization started Project Steve, listing just scientists with the name Steve who supported evolution…and their list outnumbered the creation list easily.
It doesn't matter what scientists believe. What matters is their science. Check out Francis Collins. Leader of the Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian, and staunch defender of evolution. Why? Because he understands the science.
"RE the intelligence behind the behind the behind, etc. That would be God, who, according to Christianity, has existed eternally."
Nope. You can't cheat. If you say "anything complex has to have an intelligence make it", you can't turn around and give an answer that breaks your first rule. Either everything that's complex needs a designer, or it doesn't.
Some scientists – some. Granted, there are many. However, the list of scientists who dissent from Darwin's theory seems to be growing. While the published list focuses on the statement that there is too much complexity in nature for Darwin's theory to be the 'fact of the matter' en toto, here is somethint to think about:
"In 1996 and again in 1998, Pulitzer Prize winner Professor Edward Larson of the University of Georgia and Washington Times reporter Larry Witham teamed up to duplicate Leuba’s study in an effort to determine if scientists’ religious beliefs have changed much over the last 65 years. Larson and Witham found that 40% of American scientists still believe in a personal God. This does not include scientists who believe in an impersonal God or in a God who does not answer prayer. Nor does it include scientists who believe in a personal God, but don’t believe in the immortality of the human soul. If we were to take them into consideration, the percentage would likely be higher."
http://nobelist.tripod.com/ lists among the nobel laureates who believe in God a significant number of scientists including many of the founders, if you will of modern science (27 Nobel Laureates who are scientists in various fields and nearly 20 'founders'.
RE the intelligence behind the behind the behind, etc. That would be God, who, according to Christianity, has existed eternally.
"Specifically to cause more controversy…don’t you find it strange that the perfect time your god thought to reveal himself was in the middle of a desert amongst mostly illiterate people with no form of mass communication?"
Actually, I was referring to passages in both the Old and New Testaments that speak of God manifesting himself in creation itself, which is evident to all, even the Australians. The whole conversation around the intelligent design debate. Everything in nature is just too complex for there not to have been some sort of intelligence behind it all.:)
Most people? No.
I said I'd be willing to bet. That doesn't mean I'm right. It means I look at the people I've met, and there are very few Christians that I know personally and spoken to online that have read their own holy book.
So, I'd be willing to bet that that trend continues to the general population.
Again, I could be wrong. But I'd be willing to bet a sawbuck on it.
But do you know most people? Now that is a feat of tremendous porportions! Where do you live, by the way? I'm in the Colorado Springs area.
Dan,
Sure I'll make a positive assertion. And guess what, I'll stand by it. And if I happen to be wrong, I'll admit that.
I like it when that happens. Means I'm learning.
Morse,
Do you actually know most people? Just curious about your conclusion, which is a positive assertion and, as we know, just might require the one making the assertion to incur some sort of 'burden of proof'. I'm not asking you to prove anything, mind you, just alerting you to the possibility that someone else just might.
Actually, while not coming to a conclusion or anything myself (thus not incurring a burden of proof), it's been said (by observers and reports of such statistics) that many professing Christians are Biblically illiterate and that fact is due to NOT reading it for themselves but relying on others to read it for them and help them feel better about themselves. The whole of scripture (OT through NT) is not really important, but whatever will help them have their 'best life now' or help them fulfill God's 'special purpose' for them is the focus. The God-centeredness of historic Christianity has been supplanted by a watered-down man-centered variety.
Have a great and successful Monday!
"He has proven Himself to all mankind already"
Specifically to cause more controversy…don't you find it strange that the perfect time your god thought to reveal himself was in the middle of a desert amongst mostly illiterate people with no form of mass communication?
How fair is that to the Australians?
Rob,
The negative would be that God doesn't exist, I suppose. Since I don't expect you to take belief in God (upper case 'G' – thats 'my' God and many others' too), professing unbelief as you do, I'll turn down the 'onus' if you please. He has proven Himself to all mankind already and doesn't need my help, now or later. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Have a great and successful Monday!
born4battle: "I am not asking you to actually prove anything." Good, I'm glad we got that nonsense of proving a negative out of the way. Still, you have the onus to prove your god, if you want atheists to take it seriously.
Breezy and Cliverty,
"The two views agree on only one thing — we are in a burning building."
Incorrect. The atheists say the building is fine. But they consistently see many Christians, Muslims, Jews, other religious people and even some new age and secular people trying to start fires.
The atheist says, if you people stop playing with matches then it's not going to matter if there are firemen or not.
"if the non-believers read as much of the bible as they claim to, they would never argue against the existence of God because in doing so they unknowingly fulfill all the prophesies of non-believers, further strengthening the faith of those who believe."
Sorry, but I've read all of the bible. More than once. And the only conclusion I've come to is that most people who have said they have really didn't.
I don't care that your book says people won't believe. I bet you I could write a book today about my own pantheon of gods that says there will be unbelievers who think it isn't true, and in a thousand years time that will be true. So? It proves nothing.
It's a little ridiculous. If a psychic tells you "People are going to say I don't have powers!", and he's right, does that mean he has powers? Or that he just realistically understands that not everyone is going to buy into his silly stories.
""If you want me to prove that your god doesn’t exist, then you must first prove that all the other gods that you don’t believe in don’t exist. (While you’re at it, prove that an invisible, undetectable elf isn’t peeing on your forehead at this moment."
I am not asking you to actually prove anything. That was asked and not answered some time ago – asked, or point made, by more than one 'mindless delusional mythicist' (maybe I should use MDM – less typing). I keep referring that little combination of words used to describe believers in God by non-believers in this blog, and a few others preceding this one. I keep using it because it reminds me of the attitude of some toward believers – 'insults and berating', as mentioned by a previous commenter and reflected in the parenthetical conclusion to the initial quote posted here.
I would like to address the very sincere question posed by 'flowology':
". . . is it necessary to follow Christianity and only Christianity to be redeemed?"
If I am a sincere follower of Christ, than I must answer that it is because Jesus made that claim – that no one can approach the Father except through Him. If I do not answer 'yes' I am not being true to my faith, am I? I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, just posing a question that addresses the Christian faith and the nature of religion.
I could also answer yes because of the nature of redemption itself. To 'redeem' is to buy back, to purchase something that was once owned, lost and had to be 'bought' back. Christianity is the only religion that 'redeems' anyone – at least I have not discovered another religion that does. I've researched many and tried some other religions. Outside of Christianity, all religfions seem to be 'works' based. To eventually arrive at the 'end state' (heaven, paradise, whatever) human effort is involved in getting there.
Christianity, on the other hand teaches that God originally created 'perfect' humans with totally 'free will' but they disobeyed the one command given them. The result was that 'sin' entered the environment created for humans and tainted even their very souls to the extent that every human since their fall has been born unable to please God by human effort. If peace between God and man were ever to be achieved something had to be done about sin. Mankind was in a hole and unable to 'dig' his way out.
Jesus Christ paid the penalty for the sin of mankind (the death sentence) and literally 'purchased' men for God from 'every tribe and nation'. No other religion offers that. Those who 'profess' Christ do so because they have either because it's the 'best deal' for the religiously inclined (the free gift of God) or because they actually believe it. Those that actually believe it do so because God first opened blind eyes and deaf ears – brought life to the spiritually dead.
That, is the difference between 'religions' – a 'redeemer'. The one who died, was buried then raised from the dead and even seen by too many witnesses for it not to be true.
Thank you so much for the question!
1. God is “obviously” the inventor/designer/architect of “living machines” and mankind has nothing near that technology today — not even to “create” a mere single celled organism.
2. According to Jews and Christians “God revealed Himself every day in literal form” in the Garden of Eden – in man’s initial perfect Eden home. As Genesis shows – this did NOT obliterate mankind’s free will because it was from WITHIN that garden home that Adam and Eve chose rebellion.
3. The WORST possible outcome for the atheist world-view is to admit to the obvious point #1 above. Even “Junk science” would be preferred with “hoax after hoax” clung to in a desperate effort to find an alternative to point 1.
4. “What can not be proven” to an Atheist based on reason alone – is that Christianity’s view of God is the perfect/correct view of God. But the fact of #1 is undeniable for rational thinking objective minds.
Bob
Daniel D. – so, an addict, admittedly high at the time, reports having some unverifiable experience. Wow, I'm convinced. (No, really.) Your hyperbole is pretty miraculous, though.
You still haven't answered why your god should get credit for curing one addict but not be blamed for not curing another addict. If this is an experiment that can be repeatedly confirmed, then you'd have a point. However, if there is a seemingly random outcome, i.e. some addicts pray and are cured but some addicts pray and are not cured, then you'd have to explain the negative results before you could show causation.
And I'm sorry, but "god works in mysterious ways" or "god has his reasons for curing some but not all addicts" isn't going to cut it. Your god's results too often resemble random outcomes we would expect if there is no god.
Cliverty: as an atheist, I don't agree that the building is burning. I think that's your delusion. There are a lot of windows, but we can't see the ground from where we are. You claim there are firemen below your window, but you can't prove it any more than the others who claim that your firemen are false, but they have the real firemen out of their windows. And they can't prove theirs either.
Now you're telling me that the building is on fire (and incidentally, your firemen started the conflagration in the first place if we are to believe your firemen myth), and that we should ignore the means at our disposal to put out the fire ourselves, and just give up and jump out the window. Well, you go ahead. There might be some smoke, and some hot spots in the building, but so far I haven't seen a fire and I only have your word for it that the fire is as bad as you say.
Leave. There's the window, go already, and leave those of us with some backbone alone so that we can take care of the problem that's there. Say hello to the sidewalk as you hurtle through it. The building will survive a lot better without your ilk mucking things up anyway.
Hi John, I'm not writing to debate the story of Christianity here, but more the need for a single religion. I do believe that there was an amazing man called Jesus, who was directly inspired by God. I do believe that humans make mistakes. But is it necessary to follow Christianity and only Christianity to be redeemed? I also believe in karma (or, as in the Bible, that we'll reap what we sow). The only thing I don't like about religion is the way each one makes out it is the ONLY path to truth. That attitude has done a lot of damage. Do you also believe this? I think that being open to God means listening, and what you hear does not necessarily have to subscribe to any single religion.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
{ 1 trackback }