Faith v. Logic

[PDoug]

I'm curious what arguments each of you would use if to get an Atheist to consider becoming a Christian you needed to win him over with logic instead of appealing to a leap of faith.

This, in my mind, is the only sound way of conversion. And I believe it to be the only way, for the most part, that any atheist will consider becoming a Christian - is if logic and reason is on our side instead of theirs.

So feel free to offer suggestions. Until one's faith is based on reasonable assumptions, their arguments will fall flat. If you wish to list prophecy, please explain how the passage is prophetic and how it was fulfilled and when, etc.

My opinion so far, however illogical or logical it may be, is that either God or universal causes brought about our existence. My concern is why atheists wish to choose the universal cause over God; and if they wish to reject God, then what is their reasoning for choosing a universal cause over God and which 'cause' would this be? And if an Atheist cannot explain the beginning/end/infinity of the universe, what biases or logic leads them to accept a Godless structure to the universe?

Atheists are welcome just as Christians are to participate in this thread and offer their opinions.

It is important to realize that the Father is all logic / intelligence, and that all of creation are thoughts of God that are called into existence via His word. With God, there is no choice between logic and faith: rather it is faith which gives someone access to infallible logic. A person who does not have genuine faith, contemplates things with deficient logic. It is therefore a misconception that atheists are men of reason and men of God are not. Any man of God who has real, strong faith, will confound atheists and other ‘intellectuals’ in any area of consideration.

 

[lovely]

Mr. Douglas,

I agree with your post, and much more articulate than mine back on the first page. I tried to say something similar, but I am not sure it went over. I hope it does this time since you stated it so clearly. The Lord bless you.

 

[PDoug]

lovely,

Thanks.

 

[Packrat]

My second installment to your question, Quath: http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

I don't have a lot of time to research it on my own, but that site should prove to be - if not anything else - an interesting read. I'd have to do my research on what they're saying in order to post my opinion up here, though at least they seem to give some references from the Bible to support their opinions on the matter. I tend to agree with them on the month being a 30-day month. I had come to the same conclusion when I read Genesis before I ever knew about this site.

Anyway, I listed that particular webpage of the site because it deals a lot with calculating time. Hope it helps, but likely external research on your own will help a great deal more in verifying it.

With God, there is no choice between logic and faith: rather it is faith which gives someone access to infallible logic. A person who does not have genuine faith, contemplates things with deficient logic. It is therefore a misconception that atheists are men of reason and men of God are not. Any man of God who has real, strong faith, will confound atheists and other ‘intellectuals’ in any area of consideration.

It's easy to make that claim. It's much harder to substantiate it, just as questions are more easily asked than answers given. If that's all you said to an atheist, they'd probably laugh at you or simply smile. But feel free to offer your opinion and knowledge on the matter of evidence for God as this is the thread to do it in. :bday: It's possible I won't be here for a great deal of time, as I have a good amount of work to do and don't know when the next time will be that I'll have access to the internet.

 

[Quath]

Numbers are fun to play with. When they are not tied down, they can be used to mean anything. I remember hearing a guy on Art Bell (I think that was the radio DJ) who did a lot of alien shows. Anyway, this guy wanted to use numerology to prove something. He mixed in dates with lattitute and longitude amd letters in the alpha bet and so forth. In the end, he believed he proved that aliens built the pyramids and they were coming back in the year 200 at Washington DC.

I seem to have a somewhat related problem to the seventy sevens. Once you are allowed to play around with the numbers, and the meanings, you can pretty much come up with anything.

 

[PDoug]

It's easy to make that claim. It's much harder to substantiate it, just as questions are more easily asked than answers given. If that's all you said to an atheist, they'd probably laugh at you or simply smile. But feel free to offer your opinion and knowledge on the matter of evidence for God as this is the thread to do it in. :bday: It's possible I won't be here for a great deal of time, as I have a good amount of work to do and don't know when the next time will be that I'll have access to the internet.

Consider this: we are able to discern the laws that govern our universe by observing it. We know that it is a universal law or principle, from our observations around us, that nothing that exhibits organization can come into existence by any other means but by an intelligence establishing it. A house cannot come into existence without men or other intelligent beings building it. Therefore the idea that order came out chaos or nothing all by itself, is refuted by this law. In fact if we see any phenomenon around us that shows order or an ordered transition, we know there are intelligences behind it – per the law I sighted. (This is consistent with a lot of scriptures out there. E.g. The Book of Enoch 60:16-23.)

Also we see the law around us that says nothing can create something substantially better than itself. We do not see viruses creating human beings in labs – instead we see the opposite. We do not see pots creating potters – only potters creating pots. This law alone refutes evolution.

One other law we see around us is that truthfulness and intelligence go hand in hand with righteousness in a man. Therefore a man who is fundamentally good is also truthful and intelligent, and the more good he is, more the truthful and intelligent he is as well. Now given the fact that no one has been able to credibly accuse Jesus of anything bad (whereas the same is not true for intellectuals throughout history), Jesus’ claims about the way things are, and his reasoning about our universe must be greater than those of intellectuals around us. Therefore by virtue of Jesus’ perfect righteousness, his claims about God and about how the universe works must also be perfectly true and intelligent as well.

In addition to above, there are other ancillary things that confirm the existence of God. E.g., we see the law that says that the more righteous and intelligent a society, the greater the things it can accomplish. In other words a lawful, intelligent society can create magnificent things, whereas an unlawful, foolish society can only create lesser things - if anything substantial at all. It follows that God’s claims about creation, are consistent with the necessity for the existence of beings who are exceedingly righteous and intelligent, who are to be able to create the vast, magnificent assembly of things, which we call creation.

 

[PDoug]

Packrat,

Another important point is that science does not claim to know the truth about things per se. Science constrains itself with the creation of models that show how physical phenomena work and interact with each other. Science therefore cannot lead someone to the truth, and constructs such as evolution are but vain attempts to determine the truth about our existence, using a mechanism that is inherently unable to take us there.

 

[Packrat]

So I got a break... Cool.

I seem to have a somewhat related problem to the seventy sevens. Once you are allowed to play around with the numbers, and the meanings, you can pretty much come up with anything.

Within reason I think. I doubt someone could say that it means seventy times seven periods of 22 minutes and 34 seconds. I mean, where's the reasoning in that? But I believe that it was in the Hebraic culture that sevens played the part that tens do in the metric system. I may be wrong, but that's my conclusion from what I've been taught. I had the privilege of attending a lecture (or multiple lectures actually I think) of a rabbi that passed through town one time. I've got all of the tapes of his lecture sessions. At any rate, he was the one who told me that the Hebrews could use sevens in an example in which they could say, "... weeks of years," and it would be accurate usage in their language. A week is seven days, but it can also mean a period of sevens I believe.

Just compare the NIV translation with Young's Literal Translation:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=15;

The seventy 'weeks' just means seventy 'groups of seven.' A week doesn't mean the same thing in their culture as it does in ours - it can have multiple meanings I believe. Anyway, gotta go.

 

[Drew]

nothing that exhibits organization can come into existence by any other means but by an intelligence establishing it. A house cannot come into existence without men or other intelligent beings building it.

I do not think this is correct. Imagine a garage with all the parts necessary to create a car scattered about on the floor. Imagine that a giant earthquake strikes. It is indeed possible that this event will cause all the pieces to jump into the right position to create a functioning car. So a complex organized entity can indeed come into being without "intelligence". Is it likely? Of course not. But the point is that there is no "law" that complex organization requires an intelligence to bring it into existence.

 

[Packrat]

Imagine that a giant earthquake strikes. It is indeed possible that this event will cause all the pieces to jump into the right position to create a functioning car.

In a one-time occurrence like that, I would say that the odds are so great against it that it would cease to be possible and would be impossible. In our case, there were no parts and then the parts came from somewhere. Where was that and what was the cause of it all?

I think a better example would be the formation of stars, although this can't explain the creation of the universe - only the rearranging of matter already in it. Even in ancient days rivers formed and ran dry from time to time - just as stars form and burn out. Did an intelligence create the star? As Christians we believe that it did in an indirect manner (ie. God's laboratory).

Gotta go again.

 

[PDoug]

I do not think this is correct. Imagine a garage with all the parts necessary to create a car scattered about on the floor. Imagine that a giant earthquake strikes. It is indeed possible that this event will cause all the pieces to jump into the right position to create a functioning car. So a complex organized entity can indeed come into being without "intelligence". Is it likely? Of course not. But the point is that there is no "law" that complex organization requires an intelligence to bring it into existence.

Show me empirical evidence that what you suggest is possible, and I will accede your point. At the most, men can speculate that what you suggest is possible. But in the end, it amounts to nothing. I.e., it is not proof, and it therefore does not refute the law I sighted.

 

[Drew]

Show me empirical evidence that what you suggest is possible, and I will accede your point. At the most, men can speculate that what you suggest is possible. But in the end, it amounts to nothing. I.e., it does not refute the law I sighted.

Empirical evidence is not required to establish the mere possibility of something. It is possible that I will be kidnapped by space aliens. There is no "law" that I see that organization must be produced by intelligence. Can you describe the foundation for your belief in such a law in more detail please?

 

[Drew]

Follow-on: If I take 52 playing cards and throw them up into the air, it is possible that they will land in 4 ordered stacks, each stack containing 2 through Ace of each suit in sequential order.

That this is possible is obvious.

 

[PDoug]

Empirical evidence is not required to establish the mere possibility of something. It is possible that I will be kidnapped by space aliens. There is no "law" that I see that organization must be produced by intelligence. Can you describe the foundation for your belief in such a law in more detail please?

If a law establishes that the universe operates a certain way, the only way deviation can occur, is if that law is waved or annulled. Are you saying, with the way the earth is now, that the force of gravity of the earth can cause an object to fall to the earth at an acceleration other than 32 ft/sec^2?

 

[Drew]

If a law establishes that the universe operates a certain way, the only way deviation can occur, is if that law is waved or annulled. Are you saying, with the way the earth is now, that the force of gravity of the earth can cause an object to fall to the earth at an acceleration other than 32 ft/sec^2?

No I am not. Its just that I do not think you have demonstrated that the kind of law that you refer to (about intelligence being needed to create order) actually exists. Can you present your reasons for believing in such a law?

 

[PDoug]

Follow-on: If I take 52 playing cards and throw them up into the air, it is possible that they will land in 4 ordered stacks, each stack containing 2 through Ace of each suit in sequential order.

That this is possible is obvious.

It is important that you make a distinction between individual laws, and events that occur that involve the participation of a series of laws. If 5 cars go around a curve, and all 5 cars go around the curve differently, that does not mean that the law of friction, Newtonian, and other laws, were deviated from (to various degrees) by the 5 cars. All 5 cars adhered to the above physical laws, but a complex array of events caused 5 varying outcomes of the cars to occur. In the same manner, if a law is seen to exist, it will not be deviated from even when a complex series of events occur which involves that law.

 

[Drew]

In the same manner, if a law is seen to exist, it will not be deviated from even when a complex series of events occur which involves that law.

I agree. Now why should we readers believe that the law you refer to actually exists.

 

[PDoug]

I agree. Now why should we readers believe that the law you refer to actually exists.

Have you ever seen a house built any way other than by intelligent beings? Isn’t it therefore a principle that things that show organization are governed or built by intelligent beings?

 

[PDoug]

Drew,

It is important to note that all probability does, is note the possibility that intelligent beings may build a house, or cause a certain outcome to occur. There is no such thing as randomness or chance. The tiniest item that exists is governed by intelligences (called Fate) which ensure that all things unfold they way they are supposed to. Otherwise, no life as we know it could exist.

 

[PDoug]

Drew,

Prophecy is proof of the claim I made above. We know empirically that prophecy is true. If things in fact unfolded by chance, prophecies would never be possible – since chance would cause a cascading effect, knocking events way in the future off course.