OK here’s the situation:
My coworker has made a statement that I know is unsound but I can’t think of the right way to respond.
1- " If you were truly sincere in your search for God, He(Jesus Christ) would reveal Himself to you"
How do I respond?
Also she says there is unequivocal proof in the existence of Jesus. Is there? Non-faith based of course. She offered the fact that matter exists-therefore Someone had to create it.
It’s a pretty fair bet that Jesus existed, the debate is over whether he is the son of God.
If your cow-orker has proof of this, present it to a Rabbi.
And to answer the first question, ask why it’s necessary for you to go to Him. Why can’t He come to you? Some people search their whole life for faith and can never find it, in all sincerity.
I don’t agree that it is an unsound statement - altogether anyway. The thing is, according to the Bible, it is God’s will that all follow Him, but He lets that up to us to make the decision. I do believe He shows Himself to us in many ways, it’s just not in the ways that we are looking for, so we don’t acknowledge it.
Well, the two subjects aren’t exactly one in the same…well, they are, but they aren’t. There is what most would consider unequivocable proof that a man named Jesus lived on this earth, did many things considered to be miracles, was crucified, and later his tomb was empty. I’ll let the details up to someone like Navigator.
Then there are what others who deal with Creation Science and Intelligent design bring as proof of a Creator. Again, I’ll leave the details up to someone else.
Now, for those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - a part of a Trinitarian God-head (God comprising of 3 persons) - Christ (being God) is the creator, so, technically you could marry proof of Jesus with proof of Creation.
After reading back through this, I guess I wasn’t much help, was I?
You respond with the calm observation that your friend is sanctimonious. Perhaps followed by the “fact” that if he were truly sincere in his acceptance of God’s will then he would accept Mohammed as His prophet.
This is exactly the excuse you get from so-called psychics when their “powers” won’t work under controlled conditions–it’s the nasty skeptics’ mean mental vibes! My powers are REAL! You just have to BELIEVE! If they don’t work, it’s YOUR FAULT.
Why would the Almighty resort to the same tricks as con-men and charlatans?
My response to your co-worker (or cow-orker) would be the if God created me, He specially made me with the ability to reason. Why would that God want me to set aside the reason and believe in Him blindly, without any evidence, before He would reveal himself to me? I could possibly “psych myself up” into believing in God, and get myself into a state where I would feel stange things, read the Bible and get shivers down my spine, feel that the Holy Spirit had come into me–heck, I might speak in freakin’ tongues. But I know I would be deluding myself, because I simply DO NOT BELIEVE. Why would God want me to be false to myself?
My other standard response to this line of reasoning is: God, if He exists as the Christians describe Him, knows my heart of hearts, and knows precisely what it would take to convince me of His existence. He also loves me, and doesn’t want me to go to Hell. So, uh, I’m waiting. And don’t give me that “There’s evidence of God in the beauty of a flower and the glory of a sunset” bull. God knows that wouldn’t wash with me.
(This also gives your co-worker an obvious course of action. Clearly, God has sent her to provide the evidence you require. It’s all part of God’s Plan. Therefore, I urge you to use this line of reasoning with caution. 
)
that should have been she, of course.
As to the matter of whether Jesus existed, well, I think there is a general agreement that a man named Jesus did exist and preach a brand of radical Judaism. However, I do not know that three exist any non-religious textual or arcaeological sources which verify the existence of Jesus “objectively”.
MKM
Are you saying that you agree with the proposition that every human being in the last two millenia who has searched for the answer to the spiritual questions without becoming Christian was insincere?
Why would He do that? All I ever learned in church was that you were supposed to rely on faith. If Jesus just trots up and says “Hi!” to you in some sort of apparition, you don’t need so much faith to believe it. Heck, then even I would believe in Him!
You have two separated statements here - there was a person named Jesus who lived when they say he did, etc. Whether he was the son of God or not is the part where you need that faith I mentioned earlier.
As for matter existing, and thence God, I can’t follow the logic in that. Oh, because there isn’t any. I was just re-reading this old thread that dealt with that…ah, here it is:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23080
Be forewarned - it’s 7 pages long because the guy who started it just could not accept that his “arguement” was not logical, so he ends up saying the same thing your co-worker said over and over until he finally had to create another screen name/sock puppet in order to have someone agree with himself and thusly got himself banned. Actually, it’s kinda funny.
Is your co-worker an idiotic man with a mullet haircut named Patrick Ashley, by any chance? 
As usual, I begin with the disclaimer that I am a Christian and a prospective law student (in a year)… so I bring baggage from both methods of inquiry to my reasoning… But here’s my personal take on this question.
The problem with the existence of God question is that it requires a good degree of faith… but this is tautological, because if it didn’t require faith this question wouldn’t be here to be debated… if there was “proof” or some logical steps would could follow to to determine the existence of God, someone within the past several millennia would have stumbled upon it. So, we must rely on circumstantial evidence…of course
I will try to refrain from any “God exists in the beauty of the sunset, etc” talk that Podkayne rejects as unconvincing although I certainly feel is valid (although, what does ugliness “prove”?)…
Most of my reply will be a direct reply to the (I thought very good) points made above by Podkayne merely to provide a foil and structure for my own views… nothing personal against Podkayne, and I actually thought his/her arguments were very clever and fun… but I’ll start with one of my favorite quotes, which I feel encapsulates something I feel is an important component of Christianity, and certainly other religions:
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, but spiritual beings having a human experience.”
As Descartes famously noted, his consciousness (“I think”) was powerful proof (“therefore”) to his own existence (“I am”). However, I also feel that my spiritual self, or rather, my consciousness, is perhaps the best piece of (albeit very circumstantial) evidence that God exists. However, let me be clear… I do not mean “my spiritual self” to mean “my ability to reason, and think”, but I mean rather that ephermeral, and hard to describe sense of “me”, the sense that I am a separate entity from others and there is some essence of my being that is beyond the merely physical.
This spritual awareness… that “I” exist, I feel is powerful evidence (not proof!) that God exists… I cannot imagine some chemical or biological mechanism, depite the complexity of our brains, that could generate such a fabulous illusion (as a Cognitive Science professor of mine feels consciousness is)… even if such a chemical or neurological process exists it begs the question of, upon what or whom is that process exerting the illusion? This is a very sticky paradox that I haven’t myself been able to resolve. I feel that the creation of that “divine spark” that makes life alive must be just that, of divine genesis.
However, I want to escape the corner that many Christians have painted themselves into (as a liberal Christian I am saddened by much of the damage that conservative and closed-minded, and often, paradoxically, uncompassionate and judgemental Christianity has done to my faith… but thats another thread in itself). So, I want to be clear that no “Creationist” (as usually understood) am I. I am very very persuaded by the evidence of evolutionary theory and in the change of organisms over time, and scientific inquiry in general… I am myself a computer and political scientist… But nowhere in evolutionary theory, which explains primarily physical and intellectual maturation, do I find an explanation for the spiritual essence that makes us truly alive nor how this wonderful illusion seems to have developed, or even work.
So, now that I’ve somewhat tackled that issue (rather poorly I imagine), I’ll touch upon Podkayne’s two pronged points on the paradox of the gift of reason ("If God created me, He specially made me with the ability to reason. Why would that God want me to set aside the reason and believe in Him blindly, without any evidence, before He would reveal himself to me? ") and that of God’s love (“God, if He exists as the Christians describe Him, knows my heart of hearts, and knows precisely what it would take to convince me of His existence. He also loves me, and doesn’t want me to go to Hell.”).
First, remember the my initial quote, about us being spiritual beings having an human experience. Our time on this earth is a time for our spiritual self to develop and grow, to become wiser and more holy with a growing acceptence of ourselves and the divine. God himself went through such a “human experience” through Jesus, as my faith dictates. Thus, if the primary reason for us being here is to grow spiritually and to learn for ourselves the power of God, love, charity, faith, brotherhood, and resisting temptation & evil. Yes, God gave us reason… but what good would it do for Him or for us to reveal Himself so easily… As the old saying goes “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” If God simply revealed Himself and the power of his love as logical and concrete Truths, there would be no incentive for us to get through, and appreciate this world we live in, NOR to make the mistakes, successes, reasoning, and just plain LIVING and LOVING that and so crucial to our spiritual development. In learning for ourselves God’s lessons we will hold much more value in them and their Truth, then if we were simply told.
In fact, the argument can be turned on its head… the question isn’t “Why did God give us reason and then ask us to believe in Him blindly?” but rather “Why would God bother to give us reason if He was going to flat out make His existence known and easily descernable by logic? Whats the point of reason if the ultimate Truth is simply revealed?” He gave us reasoning because it is the powerful tool upon which we work and shape our spiritual selves on our journey from this world to his… a journey that is necessary for our nascent spiritual beings to fully appreciate, through EXPERIENCE, the power of His teaching.
Secondly, although I’m not quite yet sure how to tackle it… I’m making this up as I go, there is the question of if God knows what is in my heart of hearts He knows how to convince me and also, if he loves me why does he send me to Hell if I fail on this world?
Well, again, it isn’t quite clear that God’s goal is to convice you that He exists… remember, He loves you and not Himself… at least, for me, the Christian God is not a selfish one… He does not need the self-reinforcement that your acceptence would give Him. Will you be better off accepting Him? Certainly, this is in fact vital and necessary for the development of your spiritual self. However, He knows that the development of your spirit is not made in the outcome, but in the journey itself. Again, if He just convinced you of his existence (not His goal) in the way most believable to you, you would miss much of the fire that molds us into our eventual spiritual maturation and acceptence into His kingdom (His goal).
Which leads us to why does God send me to Hell if I fail in that spiritual journey? If you fail to mature spiritually in the mortal world, God certainly doesn’t want you to stagnate in the bliss of His Kingdom, a spiritual being who has learned the wrong lessons from its time in a mortal vessel, should not be rewarded for its path through evil and temptation. However, I feel that only the really hopeless of those, those who are truly unreformable, will go to Hell… or God’s spiritual scrapheap, to be crude. Also, remember that there is, at least in Catholic teaching (to be more specific to my faith) a Purgatory, a place where one who has failed to learn the lessons on earth is essentially revealed much (but not all) of God’s lessons and given a lot (A LOT!) of time to, ahem, mull these over and one’s experience among humans before, hopefully, learning these lessons and finally being embraced and accepted by God into His kingdom.
Finally, besides being a (fairly new, I’m still learning… and will be pretty much always!!) Christian, and a law student-to-be, I am also a computer scientist. In the field of artificial intelligence a big question is… can we ever create a self-aware computer? (this is not just an INTELLIGENT computer… which can, to some extent, already be done) I personally don’t think so… and, if we can, that would be strong evidence to me that perhaps I am wrong about much of the above. However… how do we really prove that the computer is truly self aware? On a related note, how do I prove that any of the humans who surround me are self-aware? We cant, we can only be sure of our OWN self-awareness… But that’s another whose “sticky question”… and thats why these are Great Debates… facilitating our continued spiritual growth in the search for the answers to all of these ultimate, and very unclear, questions.
Again, I wrote this REALLY quickly (in about 45 minutes) with very little structure or proofreading and apologize for the length… I’m sure my argument is full of holes… take it for what its worth… an opinion from a young, inexperienced, and often incorrect Christian and amateur theologian :-). Also the standard disclaimer that I apologize for any unintentional offence given applies as I have immense respect for the religious and spiritual beliefs of others and I in no way am putting forth any of this as an attack on any single belief or The Truth (capital T’s)… just musings from a developing spiritual being awed, and constantly perplexed, by God’s wonder and love.
–M
emjaycue,
I think your post was great, though I don’t understand a word of it. (Apologies for the hyperbole).
You said that the reason faith is necessary is because the point of our existance as humans is to grow spiritually. Well, why? What would be the point of that?
It’s my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Christians believe that when one gets to heaven, one will be joined with God/understand everything–however you wish to phrase it. If this is so, what is the point of struggling to learn these things on Earth? If reincarnation was a componant of Christianity, I could imagine the argument that such lessons would prepare one for a better next life, but what lessons could one learn on Earth that would make one’s life in heaven better?
As to hell, I know you said that you belive only the “really hopeless” go to hell. But wouldn’t their hopelessness be a direct result of their failure to learn the spiritual lessons they were supposed to learn on Earth? How could a merciful, loving God condemn people for failing to learn a lesson which he obvioulsy feels will be difficult enough for them to understand that it required creating an entire world so that these creatures could learn through experience? I draw this inferance form your quote:
In summation, the ultimate goal is that we join God in heaven, where all will be revealed. But before that, we must experience being humans, so that we can learn spiritual lessons. We must learn these lessons without God just telling us the answer (even though he will do so eventually) because…I’m sorry, I’m completely confused.
What am I not understanding?
No. I said nothing of the kind. My opinion is that if we are looking for God, but we don’t find Him, we are probably looking for something other than He really is, or for a way other than in the way He is showing Himself. As in any situation, you can be completely sincere, but be misled or looking in the wrong direction.
Thank you, emjaycue for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation.
This is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Invoking a “God of the gaps” to fill in whatever current science doesn’t explain is dangerous, since science advances, and God gets shoved out of the gaps. Sure, new gaps open up, but upon discovering that angels don’t push the planets around the sun, isn’t it silly to use angels to explain the next mystery that comes around? Just because you can’t imagine something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
This is really just an extension of the “beauty of the flower” argument. I believe that flowers and human consciousness can evolve without divine guidance, and refraction of sunlight and reflection by water droplets in the atmosphere routinely creates phenomenon called a sunset which my brain interprets as beautiful.
And, of course, even if consciousness or sunsets wouldn’t exist without a divine Creator, it still doesn’t prove that Jesus Christ died for our sins, right? Could be Allah, or
Brahma, or an invisible, pink, very wise and powerful unicorn.
There’s a lot in that paragraph that I could object to, but I think that would take us too far afield of the topic at hand. The OP posits that if you believe in God, Jesus will reveal Himself to you. So, supposedly God is giving proof of His existence (proof that’s accetable to these people, anyway) to those who first believe with no proof. That’s what I think is perverse.
Okey-dokey. Going to Purgatory would be proof enough to me of God’s existence–the existence of the God described by the Catholic Church, in fact. I’d be first in line for CCD class. But I guess if He’s not going to give me any reason to believe in Him before I die, it’s part of His Plan that I go to Purgatory.
Handy safety net, that. If there is a God, I hope He’s like that.
Of course, not every sect thinks so. According to some, I could be a very good person, charitable, self-sacrificing, kind, thoughtful, gentle, always helping little old ladies across the street without expectation of recompenstisia, and still rot in Hell because I haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior or because I haven’t gone through the appropriate rites and rituals or because I’ve made certain moral choices which seem to be contradicted in the Bible. Without any evidence to tell me which sect is right, what, should I run around trying to do everything that every religion tells me to, beleiving simultaneously in every possible God?
See, it isn’t just that I need evidence that God exists; He has to provide some way to understand what He considers good and evil, rather than let me flounder around in the dark, condmening me to Hell if I don’t happen to latch on to the right set of teachings.
And the statement addressed only sincerity and success in finding God/Jesus/Christ. Do you still agree that the statement is in some way sound? If so, in what way?
MikeG’s coworker said:
If you were truly sincere in your search for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, She would reveal Herself to you.
Well, by golly, if Someone had to create matter, that obviously proves that this same Someone must have also sent an incarnation of Himself down to Earth for the purpose of getting nailed to a cross by some Roman centurions. :rolleyes:
Even if you could prove absolutely, positively, unequivocably that God exists, this does not mean that Christianity (or any other religion) has described God correctly.
The soundness was in that I believe God does indeed reveal Himself - whether or not you are sincerely looking. The Bible tells us that God is the one that calls us to Him, and that His will is that all would follow Him. So, for that to be the case, He must reveal Himself. Again, I believe He always reveals Himself, but that we don’t always recognize Him because He’s not what we really think we are looking for.
The way I responded to people in high school . . . “worry about yourself, not me.”
Ask her for it. There are billions of people who don’t accept any part of the Bible as being the actual story of the life of Jesus. Believing it as such, in their eyes, is equivalent to believing the Grinch exists because of Dr. Suess.
Just to throw the wisdom of a cynic into the debate (I forget who, and am too lazy to look it up… so forgive me if I don’t get this quite right):
We have two choices:
A) Have faith in the existence of God/religion.
B) Don’t have faith in the existence of God/religion.
There are two (really three) results
X) God exists.
Y) God doesn’t exist.
Z) God exists, but we believe him to be 123 when he is really 456.
Now, lets do a cost/benefit analysis (a la, the Prisoner’s dillema)
Case A)
Case X): We obtain all the earthly benefits (ie psychological) of faith, and also the benefits after we die. (Net: Positive).
Case Y): We obtain all the earthly benefits or faith, and when we die we never learn of our error. Oh well. (Net: Positive).
Case Z): Stinks… (but I personally believe that a wise and benevolent God will forgive us for getting the details wrong (ie. His form/existence… I am even including atheists here) as long as we get the big picture (ie. how to live a good life, possible without necessarily believing in him per se)
Case B)
Case X): We end up being wrong and potentially face the punishment later of rejecting God and His teaching. (Net: Negative).
Case Y): We end up being right… but we’re dead, so we never find out and we can’t appreciate the irony post mortem ;-P. (Net: Neutral).
Case Z:) Special Case were God 123 = Noone. Same comments apply above.
So, if we discount Case Z as problematic for being too ideological/specific/exclusive we see that one can only gain from a belief in God even if one is incorrect, and one has only to lose from not believing… So we might as well believe…right?
Again, not my views… but a cynic’s-eye-view of human nature is always enlightening… Whoever the philosopher was who first made it…
:=)
–M
Oh God (so to speak), not Pascal’s Wager again!
emjaycue wrote:
Net positive for case Y? I beg to differ.
There are earthly costs to faith as well as benefits. You may be spending a lot of time in church listening to a sermon, time you could have been spending at a more secular social function which would yield better earthly results. Your religion may also encourage you to spend time trying to convert others to that religion.
And don’t get me started on tithing.
We have two choices:
A) Have faith in Santa Claus
B) Don’t have faith in Santa Claus
Having faith in the Jolly Old Elf gives us a warm fuzzy feeling, and a special giddy anticipation of the holiday season. If he exists, joy and cookies. If he doesn’t exist, well, somebody’s probably buying us presents anyway. Net result: Positive.
If we don’t have faith in Santa Claus, and he does exist, we are probably on the “Naughty” list, and don’t get any presents. If he doesn’t exist, we’re missing out on some of the “magic” of Christmas. Net result: Negative.
Therefore we should all believe in Santa Claus.
Too bad we can’t wake up in the morning and decide to believe something despite not having any evidence that it exists.
Or, at least, I can’t.
I believe the “cynic” you’re looking for is Pascal. And why he (and those who dredge up his wager whenever they meet an atheist) think a person can turn faith on and off like a spigot, I’ll never know.
tracer wrote:
Certainly, but why do you assume listening to a sermon in church has less social value than a secular social function nor that the time spent in debate over religion (for what else is conversion) is also time wasted. Hee hee… this is coming from people who spend our time arguing basically unresolvable points (thus the title) on a relatively meaningless (and with very little obvious social value) Internet message board… but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, so I’ll be quiet 
But again, there is a strong argument that can be made for the social value of religion as well as the spiritual/psychological.
Podkayne wrote:
Ah, Pascal, that’s who said that, thanks… Sorry I didn’t mean to “dredge up” or touch upon a sore spot… I just thought it an interesting perspective which I feel is more of a comment on the psychological/social aspects of faith than as a prima facie attack on atheism, esp. if one recognizes the latent irony of the wager itself… anyone using such reasoning to justify their faith immediately shunts themselves to choice B = no faith… is “insincere” or “selfish” faith true faith? Probably not, at least I don’t think so… again, as many atheists argue they cannot morally have blind faith in something without some sort of basis or method of proof… which was the point I was trying to make. Looking at Pascal’s wager we can see that most attempts to use logic to explain faith will be on its face absurd and ironic… because, obviously, the existence of faith precludes a logical “proof”… If such a proof existed, it wouldn’t be called “faith”… would it?
However, as far as “turning faith on and off like a spigot”, I don’t think that’s necessarily the point… although it’s very difficult to prove faith through logic per se that doesn’t mean that it is impossible, or at even undesirable, to employ methods of logical/intellectual inquiry and introspection and to question your faith… now that truly would be blind faith. However, questioning your faith, and perhaps changing it over time (as surely happens as we mature and learn, even for the most devout… we thinking beings, and can’t help it) does not necessarily mean one is completely turning off the spigot. It would both be unfair, disrespectful, and foolish for me to not consider the arguments of others (and myself) for and against my faith. However it is up to each individual to weigh the merits of the evidence for any particular faith… even atheism itself is arguably a faith… just a special case where God = null, so to speak ;-). There is no reason why it is more logically sound to accept the existence or non-existence of God when “evidence” to prove either is lacking. Disbelief in any God takes just as much a leap of faith as belief, it just conceptually feels like a smaller leap, but it is still “faith” without true logical precepts. “There is no proof of God’s existence” → “There is no God” is just as crummy logic as “You can’t disprove God’s existence” → “God exists”.
On a related issue, and it’s something I just thought of… and again, with all due respect to any atheist. An atheist may believe that there is no God but does that necessarily preclude a belief in a higher moral Truth (with a capital T)… in other words, would an atheist believe that there is no universal Good or Bad (or at least some general conception of such)… or are all such conceptions purely socially constructed? If so, how does one explain certain aspects of morality that are cross-cultural (incest springs to mind)? Again, I’m not trying to imply that atheists are immoral…if I was I wouldn’t be asking one’s opinion on the matter ;-), but rather whether they feel that all morality is a mere social construct… and secondly, if there IS some greater Truth, or Moral Good that atheists recognize couldn’t the argument be made that they in fact are recognizing a God but just not attributing to it some sort of physical or conceptual form? Hopefully my rants on this issue haven’t been completely irrelevent. If anything it’s been a valuable religious and intellectual exercise even if my arguments are unconvincing!
–M
emjaycue, please type the words athiest and morality into the search engine. Look for thread titles in GD and have a ball.