Faith v. Logic

[Quath]

In science, the currently held model will continue to thrive, even in the face of evidence - IF there is no other more "conclusive" model to hang one's hat upon.

I agree with you, but that is kind of by design. For example, we know the Standard Model is not wholly true. We have found some flaws. However, it does the best job of prediction so far. So we stick with it until we find a replacement that does a better job.

A bad model is not bad itself. Newtonian Physics is not true. Special relativity revealed its flaws. However, we still steach Newtonian Phsyics because it works well for most common physics situations we encounter in our daily lives.

Faith is operative when we trust in the judgment of past scientist's hypothesis to an experiment's results.

The difference is that if I so desire, I can doubt them and check out the experiment for myself. A scientist can lie, but eventually they will be caught.

Go ahead and measure it. Determine, if you can, the empirical unit of measurement for a person's love. It cannot be done - and which scientist will then admit that love doesn't exist because it cannot be measured - but only inferred???

I would say that it could be measured. The problem comes when people do not define love and keep it as a vague concept. However, if you say that love is an emotion that motivates one to help another even at the cost to the person, then you have a definition that could be tested.

Basically, you are betting on the 1 in 1 x 10_100 or so chance that the universe WAS randomly created. This is not logical.

I see two problems with this. It assumes that we know the probability, which we don't. Maybe in the end, once we know everything, we will find this is the only possible universe and the odds are 1 in 1.

The other problem is we don't know how many universes there are. For example, maybe there are 1 x 10_100 universes. Or maybe this universe cycles.

First off, have you prayed for God to reveal himself to you?

Back when I was Christian, I started to doubt. I made a promise that I would never lie to myself and so I knew I was doubting. So I prayed for God to let me know he was real. I figured he would know what would be convincing to me. After a year, I tried to ask for something specific like "If you are real, could you move this book across the floor?" I just wanted a sign to make sure I was worshiping something imaginary.

In the end, I decided that I had tried but I could not force myself to believe something I had no evidence for. It would be like trying to believe that dragons are real. You can say you believe, but you really don't. So I decided that if God were real, he would understand why I lost my faith. If he still put me in hell, then he was not the being I would have wanted to worship.

If someone said over the internet that they were a 65 yr-old man and I wanted them to give me a picture of them so that I knew they were telling the truth, they're not obligated to do so and it may in fact be better not to reveal oneself over the net at times.

But it is quite different when you deal with an all poweful being that sends you to eternal torment if you do not believe. If believeing someone was a 65 year old male kept me from torment, I would expect a picture.

I've always wondered how they come up with those numbers. I'd be interested in hearing more about what sorts of things they take into account. Undoubtedly, at least to me, that is a very rough estimate.

One number they look at is the ratio of the strength of the strong force (that binds atom nucleus together) with the strength of the weak force (which is involved in some decay of necleus). If this ratio was off by even the smallest number, atoms would not form above hydrogen. However, maybe we will find that this ratio has to be this value? Or maybe it is a random value when creating a universe?

 

[francisdesales]

For example, we know the Standard Model is not wholly true. We have found some flaws. However, it does the best job of prediction so far. So we stick with it until we find a replacement that does a better job.

A bad model is not bad itself. Newtonian Physics is not true. Special relativity revealed its flaws. However, we still steach Newtonian Phsyics because it works well for most common physics situations we encounter in our daily lives.

Well, the problem is that other models are condemned by scientists without even examining the evidence or the possibility that they might have an incorrect paradigm. Some bring philosophical baggage to the table. If a person already has the belief that there is no God, how will you convince a person of the possibility of theistic evolution? What sort of evidence will that person require? A visit from God Almighty? And even that would be a questionable experience. (Was that really God or did I image that?). In the end, no evidence will suffice for someone who is determined to hold a particular philosophical point of view. And this includes scientific models. All one has to do is view the debate on evolution.

I would say that it could be measured. The problem comes when people do not define love and keep it as a vague concept. However, if you say that love is an emotion that motivates one to help another even at the cost to the person, then you have a definition that could be tested.

I think not. You are never going to KNOW whether a person is "faking" love or has other motives for doing something. There are too many variables to factor out whether something is done based on solely love or not. And what sort of measurement are you going to use? What sort of test instrument is going to detect it? Thus, scientifically, love is not measurable. It is based on trust, which is something that rests upon faith. There are many more applications of this in the course of human life. Anything built upon trust is another way of saying faith.

Again, this is based on inferential knowledge - which you have discarded as unreliable knowledge...

I see two problems with this. It assumes that we know the probability, which we don't.

Sure we do. Science tells us that the formation of proteins, for example, is a peculiar thing.

"The mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that noboby still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn't work. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just ONE functional protein MOLECULE would be ONE chance in 10_60 power..."

"The probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as blindfolding a man and telling him to find one marked grain of sand somewhere in the Saraha Desert - and doing it three times" (Buell and Hearn, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?)

That is JUST protein molecules. We have barely scratched the surface. If you want to base your belief in no God on such long odds, you are taking a tremendous leap of faith!

After a year, I tried to ask for something specific like "If you are real, could you move this book across the floor?" I just wanted a sign to make sure I was worshiping something imaginary.

That is NOT how we find God! Surely, as a Christian, you read the Bible? Do you remember what it says about asking for such sort of signs? They just won't happen, since it eliminates the need for faith itself. IF we could definitively PROVE God's existence without any question or doubt, what sort of merit would that be for the person of faith? "Blessed is he who believes but does not see". Such a person will be rewarded. God expects a child-like trust in Him. There is plenty of evidence to support His existence. If you find it necessary to make the odds 1 to 1 vs. what science clearly tells us about protein molecules randomly forming, you clearly are setting the standards of evidence WAY BEYOND what you would set for any other item that requires faith.

You utilize faith daily. Do you demand to see George Washington tell you that he was the first president of the US? Do you demand to stand on China to confirm its existence? Do you demand to go back in time and meet Alexander the Great before believing he conquered Persia? Do you have a battery of auto mechanics check you car before you start your engine? Do you have electronic technicians testing your alarm clock to make sure it will work when you set it? And what about your relationships with other people? Do you trust anyone to tell you the truth? Why? What empirical proof do you have?

Seems like you are setting the bar pretty high for God, and pretty low for everyone else...

I imagine the above questions may seem silly - but no more silly than proving God's existence. The fact that we even exist is proof enough for anyone, especially one who is knowlegeable about how science is continuously amazed about the wonder of the universe, both on the macro and micro level. As I said before, a person who is an atheist is just looking for excuses to NOT believe. The logic and the odds are clearly supportive of His existence.

If it was any other subject, would you go to Vegas based on the odds of protein forming itself into amino acids randomly? I think not. That is why this is not a matter of empirical evidence missing. It is a philosophical problem. When a person refuses to believe something, it is near impossible to convince him otherwise. Only when you are open to the possibility is conversion even a possibility.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

However, in everyday speech, we may talk about facts and truth. But this is more of a shorthand way of saying "I have such high confidence in this that I will just assume it is true."

Actually absolutes are necessary whether you have to assume upon them or not. And how much of a thing do you have to know about someting before you can assume and absolute about it.

For example I'm absolutely sure you exist. Well, maybe that's a bad example since I've never met you but I'm sure my parents exist, I'll say that. And it is quite more than "high confidence", I'm 100% sure of it.

 

[Quath]

In the end, no evidence will suffice for someone who is determined to hold a particular philosophical point of view.

I agree to an extent. Some people will hold on to views despite evidence to the contrary. There ahve been scientists that have done this. However, as the other scientists advance past them, the either accept the paradigm or they get left behind. One such example is Einstein. He refused to believe in purely probability based events. However, eventually the evidence became overwhelming that Einstein had to admit it was right.

I think not. You are never going to KNOW whether a person is "faking" love or has other motives for doing something. There are too many variables to factor out whether something is done based on solely love or not.

There are two types of measurements you can do. One is to understand the braon and how it is wired and programmed and then follow the electrical currents and harmones to understand motives and such. However, this is far beyond our understandings.

Another type is similar to how they try to measure artificial intelligence. State the results of love and see if things behave in that way. For example, if a mother risks her life for her child, we can call it love. If an animal does it, we may call it love as well.

I think the problem is we lack information, not that it is impossible to know this stuff.

The mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that noboby still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life.

If you are talking about the origins of life, there are two things to take into account. The first is that some physical processes build upon others. It is hard to make rain without dust in the air. So having dust in the air raises the probability by a pretty big amount. There could be smaller protiens that eventually combine to form bigger ones.

The other is a game of probability. Say that the odds are 1 in 10 to the 60. (Or whatever number you want.). That means that you would need 1 in 10 to the 60 trials. At an extreme case, say that each planet only gets one trial. So you would need for 10^60 planets. The current Big Bang theory says the universe is infinite in size. (This may or may not be true, but it is bigger than we can observe.) So there should be an infinite number of planets with life on it. The probabity just determines how far on average they are away from each other.

Do you remember what it says about asking for such sort of signs? They just won't happen, since it eliminates the need for faith itself.

It did happen in the Bible several times. God proves himself to Pharoah. God even participates in a game to show the Priests of Ba'al he was real. Jesus shows Thomas the holes. God gives signs and wonders to the people all the time in the Old Testament to show he is real and supreme.

Do you demand to see George Washington tell you that he was the first president of the US?

I can look up records, find some of his remains, see diaries of people around him, etc. So there is some evidence and I have to determine if it is simplier that he was made up or if he existed. This is the same for everything else. If I doubt, I can verify myself. This is not the case with religious beliefs.

As I said before, a person who is an atheist is just looking for excuses to NOT believe.

Well, you may call me a liar, but I gave up my belief reluctantly. I wanted ther to be a God who loved me and cared for me. However, I realized it was wishful thinking like I had with Santa Claus. So I gave it up out of doubt and because the world just makes more sense without him.

When a person refuses to believe something, it is near impossible to convince him otherwise.

This goes both ways.

 

[francisdesales]

Some people will hold on to views despite evidence to the contrary. There ahve been scientists that have done this. However, as the other scientists advance past them, the either accept the paradigm or they get left behind. One such example is Einstein. He refused to believe in purely probability based events. However, eventually the evidence became overwhelming that Einstein had to admit it was right

Well, certainly. The problem is when scientists go BEYOND their field of observation, into the metaphysical and try to factor out the existence of God. When you come to the table with a priori philosophical beliefs, you have closed the door to explaining our experience of llife.

There could be smaller protiens that eventually combine to form bigger ones.

This merely ignores the problem that protein molecules do not randomly form.

The other is a game of probability. Say that the odds are 1 in 10 to the 60. (Or whatever number you want.). That means that you would need 1 in 10 to the 60 trials. At an extreme case, say that each planet only gets one trial. So you would need for 10^60 planets. The current Big Bang theory says the universe is infinite in size. (This may or may not be true, but it is bigger than we can observe.) So there should be an infinite number of planets with life on it. The probabity just determines how far on average they are away from each other.

I am just discussing the possibility of proteins forming themselves...There are many other issues that have to be just so on THIS planet and THIS solar system. The odds are staggering, I don't care how many universes you choose to invent (since we have no evidence of other universes). Your faith in such explanations of far-fetched possibilities is quite interesting, considering your condemnation of faith itself. Don't you realize that your explanation of the universe's existence is based entirely on the faith of such exponential proportions as to be virtually impossible? It is more likely there is a Santa Claus flying around on December 24th...

It {asking for signs} did happen in the Bible several times. God proves himself to Pharoah. God even participates in a game to show the Priests of Ba'al he was real. Jesus shows Thomas the holes. God gives signs and wonders to the people all the time in the Old Testament to show he is real and supreme.

God chooses to work in such ways when HE wills. For us ordinary people, God expects us to make the connection that He is present in all things WITHOUT a miraculous manifestation. IF He did, it would no longer be miraculous, but common place.

I can look up records, find some of his remains, see diaries of people around him, etc. So there is some evidence and I have to determine if it is simplier that he was made up or if he existed. This is the same for everything else. If I doubt, I can verify myself. This is not the case with religious beliefs.

It most certainly IS! You TRUST in the records, the diaries, the remains are actually George Washington, that it wasn't just some big conspiracy planned by someone. This is called "FAITH"! It is the exact same thing in a religion based on an historical event such as Christianity. We trust the witness of the Apostles and their writings that we now call Scripture is true. You set particular standards for what is acceptable, whether it is regarding national history or religious history.

I would like to know why you have two different standards - why RELIGIOUS standards are apparently unachievable in your eyes. You expect God to appear to you - but you apparently don't expect George Washington to appear to you... Why is that? I will presume it has nothing to do with logic or proof or veracity. Until you come to terms with that, I don't see how you can ever have faith in God. We can easily transfer this conversation to ANY topic whatsoever. If you refused to believe that George Washington was the first president, there would be nothing LOGICAL I could do to convince you otherwise - since logic is not the reason you refuse to believe. I was there, brother.

Regards

 

[Quath]

This merely ignores the problem that protein molecules do not randomly form.

We do know that amino acids form naturally. We see other organic building blocks form naturally. It just seems simplier to assume that a natural process will be found rather than just assume magic. Using magic to explain natural events tends to be discedited over time. For example, people thought angels moved the planets until gravity was discovered. Then there was no more need to have angels. People thought that God opened a window in the firmamanet dome over Earth to pour in rain, hail and snow. Magic goes away as more is learned.

The odds are staggering, I don't care how many universes you choose to invent

Then I think you are not understanding me. If there are an infinite number of universes, then anything possible MUST happen. If life is 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000 odds, it will happen an infinite number of times. It is a very strong statement that life must happen (not could happen).

since we have no evidence of other universes

Right, so it is just an assumption or theory. However, it is a much simplier assumption than assuming God exists.

God chooses to work in such ways when HE wills.

So therefore God wants me to go to hell if he is unwilling to reveal himself to me. Either that or there is a flaw in Christian theology.

It most certainly IS! You TRUST in the records, the diaries, the remains are actually George Washington, that it wasn't just some big conspiracy planned by someone.

I have to weigh the evidence and go with the simpliest explanation. This is not about faith, but about evaluations. If someone presents me with evidence that it is a conspiracy that makes more sense than it not being one, I will believe that. I am led by the evidence.

I will give an example. When I started to doubt God I figured that Jesus was just a regular person who convinced people he was magic like a street magician. As I read more about Jesus, I started to doubt he existed. After all, most of his stories were the same stories attributed to Mithra and Horus. I believed he was made up and assigned a name like an urban legend. However, I read more and I did find a good core Jewish story that doesn't appear copied. So I am leaning a lot more now towards the idea that Jesus existed (but he had no magic). So I go where the evidence takes me.

You expect God to appear to you - but you apparently don't expect George Washington to appear to you... Why is that?

That is because God claims to be alive and capable. No one makes that claim about George Washington. If someone said George Washington's ghost was still around. I would have to see it before I believed it.

 

[Packrat]

No one makes that claim about George Washington. If someone said George Washington's ghost was still around. I would have to see it before I believed it.

I think when he said that you don't expect George Washington to appear to you, he may have meant that you don't expect conclusive empirical evidence to show itself for you, specifically.

For example, people thought angels moved the planets until gravity was discovered. Then there was no more need to have angels. People thought that God opened a window in the firmamanet dome over Earth to pour in rain, hail and snow.

Who thought that about angels? I think your last statement is a reference to different passages in Scripture. Who's to say that they're not poetic references to God's power rather than magical attributions to him?

So therefore God wants me to go to hell if he is unwilling to reveal himself to me. Either that or there is a flaw in Christian theology.

Or his divine revelation to you, specifically, might be demeaning for him to move a book across the floor and may also end up filling you with pride so that you end up pushing more people away from Christianity even if you, yourself, remain Christian. If you would ask him to move a book, then why not expect him to bellow his name to everyone on the earth at once? That would certainly be a more logical request to ask of him, using your line of thought, since it would not only help you to have faith in him but would also help others. Personally, I don't believe that God often does things solely for one purpose. I think that - most of the time - he has multiple purposes in mind. In other words, he kills 7 birds with half a stone. :-D

I have to weigh the evidence and go with the simpliest explanation.

I think you don't have a problem so much with believing that God created the universe as you do with believing that God exists. That's my opinion from reading your posts. If you're looking for evidence of the supernatural, there're certainly a great number of claims of the supernatural that one could sift through. Most of it may be wrong, but what about that which is not? I certainly hope that you've been considering the portions of my posts that you have not responded to.

If you have any obvious objections to Christianity, please feel free to list them. I would like to review them and, perhaps, offer you answers.

However, I read more and I did find a good core Jewish story that doesn't appear copied.

Well, I'm glad that the evidence is starting to lead you in the opposite direction than the one you were heading in. I, too, have been compiling some information on the historical evidence of Christ's crucifixion and his life. My question, though, is if he was crucified and the tomb was empty, what reason would anyone have in confronting some Roman guards in order to steal his corpse? For its healing powers? Perhaps. They'd have to want it badly enough. How ever you cut it, there is no real simple answer concerning the resurrection story - fact or fiction.

But I can truthfully tell you that I can walk on water. I've done it before. I've never tried turning water into wine, though. I've turned milk into chocolate milk, though. Does that count? 8-)

 

[Packrat]

For fear of people taking the last part of my post in the wrong way, I think it's time I explained myself. If you asked me to walk on water, I might do it. First it would depend on whether or not I wanted to do it. Second of all, it might take a great time until the conditions were right for me to do it. It would need to be winter. Then when all the lakes and ponds were frozen over, I'd show you how I can walk on water.

Let me ask you a question. Would the defeat of the foes of Gideon by God's council be considered a miraculous event or just a clever strategy? What is miraculous or magical to us is not so to God. Because he is omnipotent he can do anything he wishes. And when people say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I do not believe that is entirely true. I believe that the understanding of that power is what lifts the mind to pride and arrogance and causes corruption for the human. Omnipotence is not separate from omniscience or omnipresence. Without the latter two qualities, one would cease to be omnipotent. God's power is more than magic, just as I believe that it was more than magic that brought down the walls of Jericho. We could understand now how it would be feasible that Jericho fell, but to them it may have been only a ritual of marching around it and tooting on their horns.

 

[Packrat]

If we ask God for something, we must first make sure that it is within accordance to his will if we expect anything back from him. That would take careful examination of God's character as portrayed in Scripture. But to base your life on an expectation when that expectation may be ill placed because of near-sightedness is folly.

That's just the plain and simple truth. It's not me trying to put down your prayer for confirmation of God's existence. Believe me, I've been there and done that. Maybe not with the book-thing, but something similar... :-D I never really expect to hear anything back from God when I pray to him, but I do believe he has answered my prayers on more than one occasion.

Another instance of this other than the one I've listed is based on a story of me wanting to see better (because I'm near-sighted). One time when I was going on my daily walk, I prayed (nonverbally) to God to help strengthen my vision. Within the hour - even the half hour, I returned home to overhear my grandmother talking to my younger brother about strengthening his vision. Note that my younger brother practically had 20/20 vision at the time. Why would she be talking to him about strengthening his vision (I'll try to get back to you on this after I ask her. I'm sure she remembers)?

At any rate, I talked to her about it then since I was interested. It turns out that where she had gotten this advice was from her father who was a former pastor and also someone who enjoyed science. She didn't explain it very well to me, but I did some research later on the net and found out that it may well be possible to strengthen your vision. If you're near-sighted, you need to practice relaxing your eyes. Your eyes only have muscles that stretch them to see close up. If you relax them, you're supposed to see further away.

This may have been coincidence and wishful thinking, but I'm more than willing to accept it as a response from God. If it turns out to be false, then I'll consider otherwise.

 

[stranger]

Faith is a gift (of God). No matter how much logic you apply in any argument, no matter how sound your reasoning, if God has not drawn that person to Christ, it is a waste of time.

And as scripture confirms, we are not born of God by human decision.

Yes - even if the drawing by God is perceived by the one drawn or not. And this in itself is reasonable.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Quath]

he may have meant that you don't expect conclusive empirical evidence to show itself for you, specifically.

There is no perfect evidence. If someone showed me the body of george Washington, I could still be suspicious. If God did appear, I may wonder if it was really Loki in disguise; a faerie playing tricks; an alien; was I drugged; or is my brain messing up? But, it would be evidence. I would just have to decide which explanation was the simpliest. I don't require 100 proof since I know that does not exist. I just need enough evidence.

Who thought that about angels? I think your last statement is a reference to different passages in Scripture. Who's to say that they're not poetic references to God's power rather than magical attributions to him?

The angels pushing the planets are not in the Bible. It was just what was assumed. (The Greeks assumed their gods moved the planets and sun as well.)

The last one was a reference to the Bible. To the people of the time, they thought there was a dome over Earth. We know that is not true today. With the coices of it being false or peotic, Christians choose poetry. My guess is that many Christians also see Adam and Eve in a poetic metaphor kind of way for similar reasons.

If you would ask him to move a book, then why not expect him to bellow his name to everyone on the earth at once? That would certainly be a more logical request to ask of him, using your line of thought, since it would not only help you to have faith in him but would also help others.

I would question it and it would cause me to ponder. I don't take things on faith. I have to reason them out. For example, God will forgive anyone that believes in Jesus. So it would seem logical that he would forgive people in hell if they believe in Jesus. It makes no sense to me why God would draw the line there. It makes no sense why a good deity would even try to construct the ultimate torture device. It seems a contradiction.

If you have any obvious objections to Christianity, please feel free to list them.

I have many objections to particular thheological beliefs that make no sense to me, but that is not what stops me from believing. I just see no room for God in our universe. The Big Bang and Evolution and physics seems to show that a God is not needed to create a universe. So why suppose he exists? He explains nothing for me and just adds further complexity for it. So it is all about evidence.

My question, though, is if he was crucified and the tomb was empty, what reason would anyone have in confronting some Roman guards in order to steal his corpse?

Well, my guess is that he was buried in a mass grave and his followers just thought he was in a tomb.

I've turned milk into chocolate milk, though. Does that count?

Heh. Hard to beat that argument.

God's power is more than magic, just as I believe that it was more than magic that brought down the walls of Jericho. We could understand now how it would be feasible that Jericho fell, but to them it may have been only a ritual of marching around it and tooting on their horns.

My guess is that the Bible is like the Illiad. It talks of war and puts deities in the story. When something good happens, it is because of one god. When something bad happens, it is because of another. In the Bible, God takes both these roles.

So when there was a plague, people believed that God was mad about something. The plague naturally disappeared and they also did something to try to please God. They see the events as correlated and that creates a tradition. They also try to guess at God's beliefs and they write them down. Lets just take one example of this.

Deuteronomy 23:1 - A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

Now do you think that God (who is suppose to love everyone) would really turn away a person with crushed testicles? Maybe you do. But most Christians tend to be shocked by this passage. Wouldn't it make more sense, that the priests added this passage because they thought mistakenly thought that God would care?

Another instance of this other than the one I've listed is based on a story of me wanting to see better (because I'm near-sighted).

There was a friend of mine I went to college with. He was very active in the church growing up. He was the leader of some Christian group in his high school. When I met him, he was agnostic. He told me a similar type of story.

He started to doubt God and was scared. So he tied hard not to doubt, but the doubts kept coming back. So he decided he wanted to show that he fully trusted God. He took off his glasses and threw them into the river. He thought that maybe God would give him good vision for an hour or something to reward his faith. But nothing happened.

If it turns out to be false, then I'll consider otherwise.

Signs from God are tough. If I find my car keys in my first attempt, was that God? I have heard some people claim so. Or God helps people pick winning lottery numbers. Or God tells someone to invest in a company. Or God saves 3 people out of 10 in a burning building.

Yet I just see that as normal stuff that just happens.

 

[stranger]

Well, as an atheist, I would need evidence.

For the most part, religions focus on faith. Science focuses on evidence. When you look at a hundred religions and they all require faith, how could you choose among them? So in a sense science stands out as not needing faith and just following where the observations and evidence leads.

So to convert an atheist, you need to show evidence.

I am not against the idea of God. If the evidence supports a universe set up by God, then I want to know it. However, from the evidence I have seen, I do not see that as likely.

Hi Quath,

The evidence is presumably that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him?

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Veritas]

Quath wrote:
I would question it and it would cause me to ponder. I don't take things on faith. I have to reason them out.

But you do have faith in your reason. Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. If your mental processes are determined wholly by just motions of atoms in your brain, how can you suppose any of your reasoning to be true?

If the evidence supports a universe set up by God, then I want to know it. However, from the evidence I have seen, I do not see that as likely.

The question is beyond evidence. It is firstly philosophical.

 

[Quath]

The evidence is presumably that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him?

This is somthing measurable then. For example, we should see these rewards by looking at health records, raises, rates of accidents, etc. Yet, none of these show that Christians are any different than the average population.

If the reward you are talking about is getting into heaven, then that is no different than Odin promissing Vahalla to warriors; Zeus promissing the Happy Hunting Grounds to the best heroes; or Buddha promising Nirvanah to those seeking enlightenment. Each religion promises a reward that you are never sure you will get.

But you do have faith in your reason.

True. I have faith in logic. However, if logic is an invalid way to make choices, then I think there is no good way.

If your mental processes are determined wholly by just motions of atoms in your brain, how can you suppose any of your reasoning to be true?

It is just like I can trust a computer program. I see the human brain as just another type of computational device. Maybe I am making mistakes or maybe I do not have all the senses I need. But I have to go with observation and reason because I can not see any other way to make choices that seems to work well for what I observe.

 

[Atonement]

This is somthing measurable then. For example, we should see these rewards by looking at health records, raises, rates of accidents, etc. Yet, none of these show that Christians are any different than the average population

The rewards God is speaking of are those that the Chirstian receives in Heaven.

1Cr 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day (judgment) shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

1Cr 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

If you notice the Christian is already saved, but shall suffer loss of rewards because of lack of service. Or the Christian will receive rewards for his/her service. We are told that we receive crowns etc. But one of my favorite verse in the entire Bible is this one here.

1Cr 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

So what rewards does God speak of?? NO MAN EVER has thought about, heard or seen what is in store for us in Heaven.

It's not about health, raises etc. No where in the Bible does it promise any of this. But on the contrary it does say.

Jam 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

We as Christians live in a world where we are not striving for the here and now rewards, but there here-after rewards.

 

[stranger]

To Atonement and Quath

I was thinking about Heb 11:6 (specifically 11b)

And without faith it is impossible to please Him,for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. NASB

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Quath]

I was thinking about Heb 11:6 (specifically 11b)

And without faith it is impossible to please Him,for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. NASB

If the reward is physical, then it can be measured. If it is spiritual it is like selling bridges in the afterlife. "Pay me $10,000 and I will give you the deed to some good property in heaven." If I asked this, you would want proof of an after life and that real estate is sold there. But you juct accept an old book's claim without proof of the reward.

 

[Veritas]

Quath wrote:
True. I have faith in logic. However, if logic is an invalid way to make choices, then I think there is no good way.

Exactly. I have faith in reason and logic as well.

However the difference I think, is that I believe reason (the reason of God) is older than nature, and that the orderliness of nature, which alone enables us to know it, is derived from reason.

So, reason, as I see it, is set free from the huge nexus of non-rational causation.

Veritas wrote:
If your mental processes are determined wholly by just motions of atoms in your brain, how can you suppose any of your reasoning to be true?

Quath wrote:
It is just like I can trust a computer program. I see the human brain as just another type of computational device. Maybe I am making mistakes or maybe I do not have all the senses I need. But I have to go with observation and reason because I can not see any other way to make choices that seems to work well for what I observe.

But you trust the computer program because it operates as we designed it to. My question goes deeper than that.

I would assume that you believe the mental behavior we now call rational thinking, logic, and inference, must have 'evolved' by natural selection. Why then do you assume the universe actually operates as we deem so with reasoning and logic? Logic and reason would only be valid tools for us to understand our surroundings if the universe somehow flowed from it. If not, then as you say, there is no good way.

 

[Quath]

I would assume that you believe the mental behavior we now call rational thinking, logic, and inference, must have 'evolved' by natural selection. Why then do you assume the universe actually operates as we deem so with reasoning and logic? Logic and reason would only be valid tools for us to understand our surroundings if the universe somehow flowed from it. If not, then as you say, there is no good way.

One huge lesson that science has taught us is that the universe runs by its own rules. We can not guess them. That is why relativity and quantum mechanics made such a huge impact. They went against what people thought was reasonable and logical ideas of what the universe should do.

So science now just says that converges on the best model. It does not say it converges on truth. The hope is that the best model does lead to truth, but there is no guarantee.

So reason and logic work as part of the universe. I don't see what is gained by postulating a God to give such attributes to the universe.

 

[lawhammer]

If the reward is physical, then it can be measured. If it is spiritual it is like selling bridges in the afterlife. "Pay me $10,000 and I will give you the deed to some good property in heaven." If I asked this, you would want proof of an after life and that real estate is sold there. But you juct accept an old book's claim without proof of the reward.

Again, that's confusing the mundane world with the spiritual world, typical atheist cynicism.

Faith does not include nor exclude logic and reason except in robots.