My quest continues...

[mondar]

I think scripture is quite explicit that salvation is a process and not an event.

Just to open up the dialog a bit, I believe scripture teaches us salvation is [quote:13rprvh9]both

an event and a process. We are dealing with both justification and sanctification. :yes

I agree to the extent that baptism starts the process.

However, most who hold this view believe that justification occurs as an event and that sanctification is a process.

I don't think that is consistent with James 2:24:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.[/quote:13rprvh9]
Have you ever read any exegesis on James 2 from our side? I think the verse you refer to is not a good proof text for what you are saying. It is a mans claim to have saving faith that is being justified and not the persons position before God. If you want a fuller discussion of the context of James 2, let me know.

 

[Vic C.]

I understand where you are coming from, chesterton. The apparent contradiction between James 2:24 and Ephesians 2:8-9 is an age-old debate. We are not saved because of our good works. We need to be careful here. Many will say it's our faith (and our works). It isn't. Galatians 2:20 says this:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

James and Paul are referring to two different faiths!

Our good works are a result of our salvation. Through these works God makes evident our salvation to the unsaved. It is He who is glorified, not us.

We must also remember James was addressing this group:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (1:1)

This group(Jews) still felt bound to the Mitzvot. They were commanded to do good deeds, or works. See #s 26-58 here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

 

[chestertonrules]

I understand where you are coming from, chesterton. The apparent contradiction between James 2:24 and Ephesians 2:8-9 is an age-old debate. We are not saved because of our good works. We need to be careful here. Many will say it's our faith (and our works). It isn't. Galatians 2:20 says this:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

James and Paul are referring to two different faiths!

Our good works are a result of our salvation. Through these works God makes evident our salvation to the unsaved. It is He who is glorified, not us.

We must also remember James was addressing this group:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (1:1)

This group(Jews) still felt bound to the Mitzvot. They were commanded to do good deeds, or works. See #s 26-58 here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Are you a dispensationalist? I ask this because it will impact my next post. I recognize that dispensationalists don't treat all New Testament scripture with equal authority.

 

[mondar]

We must also remember James was addressing this group:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (1:1)

This group(Jews) still felt bound to the Mitzvot. They were commanded to do good deeds, or works. See #s 26-58 here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Vic, do you care to elaborate more on this part? What does the commandments and the Jewishness of the early Church have to do with James 2:24? How does that affect the understanding of the text?

 

[mondar]

If anyone is interested in my opinion on the correct view of James 2..... it can be found here.....

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=43376&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=James+2

You must scroll down to the first post I made. I think James 2:24 is speaking of justifying the claim of the man in verse 18 who says "I have faith." The only way you can justify the claim to have faith, is by "show me your works." So then, comparing James 2:24 and a text like Romans 4:4-5 is comparing apples and oranges. James 2:24 is not using the term justification in the sense of salvation, but in justifying a claim. James is speaking of the nature of true faith. True faith results in works that show faith.

 

[chestertonrules]

If anyone is interested in my opinion on the correct view of James 2..... it can be found here.....

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=43376&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=James+2

You must scroll down to the first post I made. I think James 2:24 is speaking of justifying the claim of the man in verse 18 who says "I have faith." The only way you can justify the claim to have faith, is by "show me your works." So then, comparing James 2:24 and a text like Romans 4:4-5 is comparing apples and oranges. James 2:24 is not using the term justification in the sense of salvation, but in justifying a claim. James is speaking of the nature of true faith. True faith results in works that show faith.

That's not a bad analysis, but what do you think this means?

James 2
21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

 

[mondar]

If anyone is interested in my opinion on the correct view of James 2..... it can be found here.....

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=43376&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=James+2

You must scroll down to the first post I made. I think James 2:24 is speaking of justifying the claim of the man in verse 18 who says "I have faith." The only way you can justify the claim to have faith, is by "show me your works." So then, comparing James 2:24 and a text like Romans 4:4-5 is comparing apples and oranges. James 2:24 is not using the term justification in the sense of salvation, but in justifying a claim. James is speaking of the nature of true faith. True faith results in works that show faith.

That's not a bad analysis, but what do you think this means?

James 2
21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

I dont know any other way to answer this other then to go over the context. In the verses you mention, James is giving us an OT illustration of his point. James says in verse 14----
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
Here we are introduced to a man who "says he has faith." In verses 15-16 James illustrates the behavior of this person who makes the claim to have faith. I notice the repeated statement at the beginning of verse 14 and the end of verse 16 "What does it profit." It is a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. The claim to have faith is worthless unless it is backed up by works. Then it is a false faith.

In verse 18 James says....
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
Once again he points to a man who "will say, Thou hast faith." This is a mere claim to faith, just as the person in verse 14. The person in verse 14 and the person in verse 18 that claim to have faith are both illustrated by their behavior. The person in verse 18 is illustrated by the faith of demons (verse 19). So is this claim to faith demonstrated, or justified by works? Obviously it is a false claim.

In verse 18 James also says at the end "and I by my works will show thee my faith." He is now going to illustrate this principle in the OT. He chooses the life of Abraham. Can James demonstrate from the life of Abraham this principle? Is he going to be able to show actions, behavior, or deeds from the life of Abraham that "show thee my faith?"
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? James quotes Genesis 22 and proves that he could manifest a true faith by works. I would ask, was Abraham unsaved before Genesis 22? Was he still in sin, and guilty of sin in Genesis 15? Did Abraham have to wait until his works Genesis 22 to become saved? Or is James saying that his works in Gensis 22 manifest his true faith? In James 2:22 James draws his conclusions from the illustration....

Jas 2:22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
Faith and works work together.... How do they work together? This is explained at the end of the verse. The word ??????? (?????????--a passive indicative form) is the goal line... it is completion... it is when something arrives. James is not saying works save us, but that works are the goal line of faith. When we have works, we then know we have faith. We know it is the right faith. We know it is a true faith. Only when there are works can a person "show his faith" to the degree that he knows he has a true faith.

chestertonrules, I think one of the issues in the passage is the semantic range of the word "justification." Because sola fide has been such a past issue, it has hurts our ability to see the semantic range of the word "justify." Yet look at some of the quotes I will provide below (all from ASV).
Exo 23:6-8 Thou shalt not wrest the justice due to thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. And thou shalt take no bribe: for a bribe blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
This is about a courtroom setting. The Judge shall not excuse the guilty. But the word in the LXX is the same as justification in the NT.
Here is another example of a judge and his excusing or justifying the guilty.
Deu 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, and the judges judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked;
There are many other examples, but this post is long enough. Thank you for your patience.

 

[chestertonrules]

If anyone is interested in my opinion on the correct view of James 2..... it can be found here.....

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=43376&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=James+2

You must scroll down to the first post I made. I think James 2:24 is speaking of justifying the claim of the man in verse 18 who says "I have faith." The only way you can justify the claim to have faith, is by "show me your works." So then, comparing James 2:24 and a text like Romans 4:4-5 is comparing apples and oranges. James 2:24 is not using the term justification in the sense of salvation, but in justifying a claim. James is speaking of the nature of true faith. True faith results in works that show faith.

That's not a bad analysis, but what do you think this means?

James 2
21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

I dont know any other way to answer this other then to go over the context. In the verses you mention, James is giving us an OT illustration of his point. James says in verse 14----
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
Here we are introduced to a man who "says he has faith." In verses 15-16 James illustrates the behavior of this person who makes the claim to have faith. I notice the repeated statement at the beginning of verse 14 and the end of verse 16 "What does it profit." It is a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. The claim to have faith is worthless unless it is backed up by works. Then it is a false faith.

In verse 18 James says....
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
Once again he points to a man who "will say, Thou hast faith." This is a mere claim to faith, just as the person in verse 14. The person in verse 14 and the person in verse 18 that claim to have faith are both illustrated by their behavior. The person in verse 18 is illustrated by the faith of demons (verse 19). So is this claim to faith demonstrated, or justified by works? Obviously it is a false claim.

In verse 18 James also says at the end "and I by my works will show thee my faith." He is now going to illustrate this principle in the OT. He chooses the life of Abraham. Can James demonstrate from the life of Abraham this principle? Is he going to be able to show actions, behavior, or deeds from the life of Abraham that "show thee my faith?"
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? James quotes Genesis 22 and proves that he could manifest a true faith by works. I would ask, was Abraham unsaved before Genesis 22? Was he still in sin, and guilty of sin in Genesis 15? Did Abraham have to wait until his works Genesis 22 to become saved? Or is James saying that his works in Gensis 22 manifest his true faith? In James 2:22 James draws his conclusions from the illustration....

Jas 2:22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
Faith and works work together.... How do they work together? This is explained at the end of the verse. The word ??????? (?????????--a passive indicative form) is the goal line... it is completion... it is when something arrives. James is not saying works save us, but that works are the goal line of faith. When we have works, we then know we have faith. We know it is the right faith. We know it is a true faith. Only when there are works can a person "show his faith" to the degree that he knows he has a true faith.

chestertonrules, I think one of the issues in the passage is the semantic range of the word "justification." Because sola fide has been such a past issue, it has hurts our ability to see the semantic range of the word "justify." Yet look at some of the quotes I will provide below (all from ASV).
Exo 23:6-8 Thou shalt not wrest the justice due to thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. And thou shalt take no bribe: for a bribe blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
This is about a courtroom setting. The Judge shall not excuse the guilty. But the word in the LXX is the same as justification in the NT.
Here is another example of a judge and his excusing or justifying the guilty.
Deu 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, and the judges judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked;
There are many other examples, but this post is long enough. Thank you for your patience.

We are not that far off.

That's a good analysis.

However, I think that if we refuse to put our faith into action we will lose it.

 

[glorydaz]

We are not that far off.

That's a good analysis.

However, I think that if we refuse to put our faith into action we will lose it.

The result of faith in God is action.

I agree, it was a good analysis.

The fruit of the Spirit will be manifest in our lives...unless we walk in disobedience.
Obedience, then, is the key.

 

[ivdavid]

O God, let Your grace abound in us to know You more. Let Your word open our feeble hearts and minds. In Jesus' name, Amen.

This is to address the questions of Denghis and any similar unbeliever.
First and foremost, I hope you've already realized that Christianity is not a philosophy of life that you can just intellectualize and arrive at a concluding belief nor is it some sentimental myth that can be emotionalized and manipulated to our conveniences. Christianity is a relationship with the one true God. Period. But that doesn't mean we are to shut our minds and believe something blindly - for God wants us to know Him...and love Him. When we are eager to know more about Him, when we seek the truth in all justness and with all our heart, He is good to reveal Himself.
Jer 29:12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Well, as seen from above, if you do believe in God and want to know more about Him in all sincerity and truth, then yes - God will reveal Himself and all our striving to guide you through His Word would help build your faith. I plead you to not resist accepting His existence. But if you're questioning the very existence of God, then it only means you're suppressing the truth which has been made clearly known to all men - so sayeth the Lord.
Rom 1:19 because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.
Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

Let me reiterate that you need to believe in God's existence for your own sake. It may seem logically redundant to ask you to believe in that very thing that you have doubts about believing but that's the only way you can be saved. Please, Please, don't harden your heart and turn away - I don't intend any personal attack nor am I trying to coerce you into believing anything - it's for your own good that I'm imploring you to start with believing in God and then to test His faithfulness. This may take a few days,weeks,months or even years - or it might be just a matter of hours before you are saved but please don't get tired and stop. Let's say you had just another couple of weeks to live - and you knew that Christianity held the answers to what would become of you after your death and what you need to do about it now - irrespective of whether you end up believing it or not, wouldn't you at least frantically examine all that there is to be examined? I beg you to persist with your search for God's revelation in the same manner - but this time, believing that God does exist.

To elaborate on how I could expect to convince you on God's existence by asking you to blindly believe in His existence and just take a leap of faith - you'll need to be aware of satan's deceptions to keep the world from knowing God, lest they believe in Him and begin to love and glorify Him. You see, God does exist and is made known to all everywhere. But satan throws a covering over man's eyes and deceives and misleads him elsewhere.
2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world [satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.

So you see, everything you ask and seek regarding God comes from your need to be restored with God, but as long as you look at it from an agnostic's viewpoint waiting for sufficient proof to come your way, it never will - or rather every proof of God would be deflected by satan's veil. But take the leap of faith and see everything with the belief that God exists and you'll find all the answers to all your questions in the revelation of God.
Psa 34:8 Taste and see that Jehovah is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him.

Let me illustrate what I'm saying -
You started this thread on the forum maybe honestly wanting some answers. It is indeed apparent from these statements of yours that you do not want to be biased...

Please bear with me, I am not trying to be subjective or disingenuous..

That is why I am here...for elucidation.

I won't discount a higher influence, no way, because I don't know.

But the reality is that you did come in with a bias in that you already held some views that seem perfectly natural and real to you. Take this for example...

I just cannot wholeheartedly accept an unconditional faith in something that has an incongruency to that which seems natural to me.

I believe all learned responses, as the animal Man evolved to his present state.

You've just assumed that evolution is true and somehow it seems much more natural to accept than the one true God.This isn't exactly your own precise reasoning, just a veil thrown over by satan - which leads me to discuss the first myth that I want to break and that is the belief that science has explained everything satisfactorily to the human mind. Let me make it abundantly clear that I have nothing against science used as a tool to benefit mankind - in fact, I embrace science myself but only as a means of viewing God's glory manifest all over. So you can rest assured that I don't live in caves trying to decry the benefits of science - my posting this via the net from my laptop should add credibility to my claim. And if it's any consolation for you, i never was always like this - I was an ardent believer in the reliability of science to explain everything as a foolproof method and I also wanted to somehow fit religion into what I already believed in science which I couldn't do without compromising parts - but God has now opened my eyes to the limitations of science in answering things related to God. I feel like a fool now thinking back at the days when I thought i was being wise - and make no mistake, i'm not writing any of this of my own wisdom now - i'm plagiarizing most from the Word of God, both written and spoken to me, and the views of other Christians. So, i lay no claim to a higher level of understanding than anyone for all has been made possible only by the grace of God lest any flesh should boast in himself.

The truth is that - Science is a religion with man as god.
And man would so dearly want to remain as god that he'd rather deny the existence of the one true God in the name of reason over faith than to accept that he's just as steeped in an unreasonable faith called science - all the workings of satan.

I'll defend this above statement in my next post....

 

[ivdavid]

Science is a religion with man as god.

I ask you to objectively think what science has actually proved.
(In this post, I might be wrong over some facts - but I'd be happy if the essence of what I'm trying to say is conveyed in its entirety.)
Let's take a simple example of a layman observing an apple fall from a tree. He's just made an observation and it doesn't make him think any further - this we call an unscientific mind. But perhaps this same apple that fell started a flurry of questions in Newton's mind. His is what we call a scientific mind and as a scientist, he started to investigate. He went on investigating and finally concluded what is now hailed as a great discovery - note the word, discovery - that all objects experience 'gravity'. Brilliant - but what has it proved? Well, it has proved that apples don't fall for no reason and it has proved that we are still on the earth's surface because of gravity - because of gravity? Just gravity? Let me push the scientific mind a few more notches - what is gravity? Well, it's the attraction of objects according to the universal law of gravitation - then I ask, where did the universal law come from? The scientist might scratch his head and maybe shake his head over my asking him a non-empirical question. But nonetheless, where did the law come from? It just was there - how could anything just be there, that's not scientific! What I meant is that that's not my department, you'll have to ask the big-bang guys where it came from. So what has Newton and science done here upto this point. They've made an Observation explaining other observations. Newton observed that a universal law is at work that explains other observations such as the apple falling. Science is all about observing stuff and not actually proving its root causes. And doesn't it make perfect sense? I can only observe and guess what the function of a particular component is on an Intel motherboard but the truth of its purpose can be revealed only by the designer from Intel through his spec sheet or manual. Similarly, man and science can only keep making observations but the truth is revealed only by the Creator in His word, the Bible.

Let's push this further. I ask the big-bang geniuses what they've proved - and they gush about how they've made this latest discovery that holds promise of proving that the first particles could actually form from nothingness and disappear into nothingness thereby doing away with the need for a God to start the Bang. And I ask - what is nothingness? They blink and look at me as if I'm a retarded philosopher but I assure them that I'm asking them to define nothingness from a scientific viewpoint. They stammer and shoot something that boils down to - that which is beyond our human perception. Isn't that where God is? Isn't that where God says heaven is? Beyond human perception. Since when did humans start thinking that 'nothing' was something they knew all about - actually it was the other way around - anything that humans didn't know, they termed 'nothing'. So if you say particles can come from nothingness, you still haven't proved anything - you're just saying you don't know where they came from. And I'm saying I don't need to know anything about it because God said He created all heaven and earth and that suffices and overfills my wonder and amazement.

But these guys don't want to bite the dust - so they start off on all their other wonderful discoveries and theories that seems to contradict the account of God (is man here actually trying to say he got something right that God got wrong in His word). They talk about how the universe is now constantly expanding and how it can be traced back to the big-bang or whatever theory they have and I ask - how is all this happening? Well, the universe keeps expanding and - no, no,wait - how does it expand? The law of - stop going around in circles by giving me this law and that theory; just tell me how all the first laws were defined. Oh, that - that's easy, the universe kept expanding over so many many billions of years and the universe then settled into this perfect cosmic balance - HOW? What do you mean how, It just happened - are you telling me that all this was Chance? Well, to put it in better perspective, the probabilistic - is it Chance? Well, it seems likely that the universal laws came into force by chance but after that, the universe is being sustained by these laws. I ask, how did these laws become permanent? what, they ask. I repeat, how did these laws become permanent - how are they sustained if not by chance even now? It seems unscientific that a probabilistic cause gave rise to a deterministic event. If you're saying that particles or galaxies or whatever keep moving randomly by probabilistic chance, and they somehow reach a perfect balance at some point, what keeps them there even now because shouldn't they be still just driven by chance? they answer - No, they reach that perfect balance of attraction and repulsion at that point and therefore come under the control of the universal laws.... Hold on, I scream - but you people just told me that the laws itself arose out of this random chance; how can these very laws that rose out of chance now turn back and cease chance altogether. How can the universe 'settle down' or 'reach a balance' all by itself if not by chance? And if chance is all there is to it, the very same chance is what is at play right now in maintaining that very perfect balance every second of our lives which the human mind just gives a term 'Law' to this absolutely wonderful concept of absolutely Unbelievable Chance. I think my belief that God set the universe in order sets my heart at peace than to believe this lunacy of being a product of chance. Silence. Then they clear their throats and say that they never denied the supernatural, they just said that wasn't their department. I ask, then how are you so sure this is what happened so many billions of years ago just because this is what you see now. Why couldn't the universe have been laid out this way by God and then it could have been ordered to slowly expand instead of this insistence on a theory of a big-bang just because it doesn't correspond to your initial assumptions or should I say, presumptions. Is it the need for human supremacy that makes submission to divine authority so offensive? They cry foul and state that evolution is a pattern and that it yields itself to be traced back to the roots. I ask how do you know that evolution is true. Then they shrug their shoulders and complain that I'm just being difficult because of my ignorance and that I should learn more from the modern proponents of evolution.

I walk, exhausted, to the biologists. I need a break - these scientists are just making my brain go dead. I'll continue the rest in my next post.

 

[ivdavid]

I've arrived at the biologists'. Even before I settle down, they start off on their discoveries of fossils and theories of modern evolution and life chains or whatever they actually are - and I simply ask the same question that seems to be the forte of post modernists and atheists - how do you know this is true? what have you proved? they look bewildered and throw their arms over all the fossils and chains and common ancestors in animals - and I say, all I see are observations by humans. If humans aren't the creators of the world, plants,animals and even ourselves, then all we're doing apart from the Creator is simply guessing how all this came about. What seems to be the irony is that God has already revealed how all this came about and it was by Him, so why is man trying to find out from where all this came about? Isn't it because he doesn't believe in God?
Well, you might say that there are those who still believe in God while being proponents of evolution to simply validate God's account - I ask, does God need validating, does God need to be proved? If He'd wanted to clarify something that He felt needed to be clarified, He would have done so in His written Word. If God simply wants to show everyone He exists, He'd come and appear before all. And that's precisely what's going to happen on the Last Day. Lord Jesus is going to come in all glory and appear before all creation - every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that He is Lord. But what is there to believe when that happens. You'll know it as fact then. Where is the opportunity to put your faith in Him when He appears - it is only now that the opportunity is given for all to believe in Christ and be saved. God Himself has clearly stated that the just shall live in faith, faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Why faith is accounted for righteousness shall be handled in a later post)
Heb 11:6 No one can please God without faith, for whoever comes to God must have faith that God exists and rewards those who seek him.

So am I in one sweep deriding all scientists and their life's work? No - not at all. I do not claim to be wise, I am in fact very ignorant about all this. I do not know how God did the things He did but I imagine that after this world passes away to make place for the new creations, all eternity in His presence will be passed in our wondering in awe at His infinite wisdom and glory. So, most scientists may be right in what they find. So many cures for viruses and pain have been found - I'm just insistent to say that it is by God's grace and not by human will. There are also many Christians who are serving Christ in their job-role as scientists. The part of science that I'm against is that which goes against the Word of God. And it is satan's deceptions that feeds off human rebellion against God that makes science seem like the final authority - No, God is the final authority. His word is true - always true. So here I stand and so does every true Christian. Anything against God's Word, even in its most appealing and convincing form, is wrong. Period. Agnostics use this as an opportunity to state that there indeed is no God on account of such contradictions but why aren't anyone questioning the validity of evolution?

The evolutionists drag me back to their discoveries and how well it matches to such a great degree of expectation and what not. Many people elsewhere on the internet have raised objections over either the method of these discoveries or the premises involved in their framing expectations and hence the conclusions drawn based on observations satisfying these expectations- but I'm going to steer away from all of them. I do not know how God created the plants and animals because He hasn't revealed this in His Word. It may be through evolution, then again it may not be. I do not intend asking Him how He did create animals, because my faith rests on Him and not His ability to prove His Word with man's discoveries at every step and turn. But this I know, that God created man from the dust in a very special and unique manner, in His own image - Praise the Lord - that doesn't corroborate with the theory of evolution of man from animal. But they cry showing me their statistical findings on the dna of the chimp and man and the charts of evolution and how man and chimp would have a common ancestor and so on. The scientific crowd themselves are searching for the missing link but I wouldn't be too surprised if man suddenly comes and pronounces that he's found the missing link, pats himself on his back, declares on his own authority that evolution of man is proved, then denies God and walks away feeling mighty proud that he did it all by himself, totally ignoring God and His Holiness.

But please hear what I have to say. And I thank God for revealing this analogy to me through experience. I love coding software programs as a hobby. Now the way I work is this - I would start coding a particular program for a particular purpose, then I'd so like what I'd done in this program, that I would use the same fragment of code in another program for a totally different use.
To illustrate in very simple terms:

Program 1:
Let there be 2 legs.
Let there be 2 hands.
Let there be dna sequence1

Then I go ahead and use the same pattern of code in a totally different program.
Program 2:
Let there be 2 legs.
Let there be 2 hands.
Let there be language ability.
Let there be soul.
Let there be dna sequence1
Let there be dna sequence 2

Now any person who sees the above 2 pieces of code has 2 options - he can either guess that Program1 was bound to the generation of the law of betterment to add/edit these extra lines to itself which thereby evolved into program2 or he can guess that I made program1 and then separately made program2 having some similarity but entirely according to my will and pleasure. How does he guess that the lines were added to program1 - well, he sees me editing, adding and deleting lines in my individual programs by the law of betterment and so he extrapolates it wrongly to presume that this is what happened in the 'evolution' of Program1 to Program2.

Add to this...
Program 3:
Let there be 2 legs.
Let there be 2 hands.
Let there be dna sequence1
Let there be dna sequence 2

Now he'd say that Program1 must be the common origin of both program2 and program3, because both these programs share so many common lines that are present in Program1 whereas I actually had written these separately, though with a large degree of overlap of common lines, but also with entirely new lines in Program2 from my own creativity according to my will and purpose. I'm not saying this is what God did - by no means at all - I'm just saying that this is an alternate theory for that proposed by evolutionists - so how would you know that evolution is true? what have you proved? what is concrete empirical evidence? Isn't it just faith in yourself that you have to be right?
But you see, in the above examples, the person can only guess until I, the designer, enter into the picture and reveal what I actually did. And God has revealed that man didn't evolve. Problem Solved. What is the confusion now? The agnostic would again begin - how do I know it is God? And I'd shout back - how do you know it isn't? He can't now run back to scientific findings as if it is some concrete evidence over God - What I've tried to do in the last 2 posts is to dismantle this treating the explanations or rather musings of science as a greater authority than the Bible. If you're willing to adhere to science, you're free to do so - but know this, believing in science is as much a matter of faith as in the one true God. And trust me, God has revealed and answered much more about life, death and purpose than you can ever glean from probabilistic chance.

The evolutionists are not done yet - they hold up their theories of natural selection and survival equations in dna and the likes. I ask them - Did you create these theories for nature to follow? They're quite rightly offended with such a naive question - they say no. I ask them then, where these theories came from? They begin to blurt out that it is a Law of - but I cut them short and ask them to give me the root cause of these laws - is it God or is it chance. And if it's 'chance', that very 'chance' is happening every second in precisely this perfect pattern that if the scientific mind can put their faith in this, I'm a midget in faith by comparison. They shrug their shoulders and ask me to go to the physicists to discuss the origin of laws and I moan that I've been there and was actually sent here by those very people. Can someone give me answers in science that can actually prove something beyond doubt and question? They say all these are matters of the religious mind and not the scientific mind - they say these questions have no place in matters of science and reason and empiricism but only in matters of spirituality - and I ask, why then do you use this very incompatible field of science to raise questions and deny matters of God? Silence? So can someone please own up that science is as much a religion where man worships himself?

Getting back to the dilemma of the unbeliever of how he can reconcile the concept of the one true God with his concepts in science - the simple answer is he can't. The truth is that God exists and science has in no way proved otherwise and will never be able to either. For man is not the creator - he must accept his place in the order of the world as a creation that has been created for and by the Creator and not try to rebel for his own flawed 'freedom' or rather captivity under satan's rule in this world. The unbeliever can still choose to reject God for science but not on the basis of wanting 'concrete proofs' instead of simple faith - for even science is a matter of faith and as we have seen, a faith that leads nowhere, that answers nothing and that never will be able to. If you're talking about blind faith - then that's what you have apart from God.
But as for me and all true Christians - we have faith that we have a perfectly Holy God who loves us and is the cause of our creation and is to whom we'd resurrect after we die to spend all eternity in His glorious presence all enabled only by His grace through Jesus Christ who died for our sins so we who believe in Him may not perish in the eternal lakes of fire but have everlasting life.

The reason of these posts of mine is to stress and re-stress that any unbeliever who wants to know about the one true glorious God is to remove all biases which are actually just veils thrown by satan. The true unbeliever in search of truth must not carry any existing beliefs as long as he wants to learn about God's goodness and holiness. He must come like a child who will absorb everything with innocent questioning. What do I mean by this? I go back to where I beagn in my first post that every unbeliever seeking to believe in God must accept that God exists and then test all Scripture to see if it is true - and surely you will be satisfied. I'm not speaking against asking God for understanding, i'm just against offending His Majesty by our demands and disbelief. I have had so many questions that shook my faith in God - and I still am a child in spiritual faith - but God has been and is good to answer whenever I sought Him in humility and helplessness apart from Him.

My purpose in this entire discourse is to ask you to set your mind to come ask God in all humility, all your questions - for eg: 'God, I'm unable to understand your reasons for being a consuming fire but I do trust and know that you're always loving to all mankind. Please help me know you better so I may glorify You more.' is definitely a prayer that God would answer when asked in all sincerity and truth whereas - 'I just can't believe how God can be loving and a consuming fire at the same time.' - is an insult to His holiness because you're making a statement of faith against His Holy nature. It's like me saying - I don't believe you're good and polite, I don't believe you're not a liar capable of the most vile evils. If you've just ignored my statement while maintaining your calm, then good for you - but that's how God would ignore you - so this answers your question -

If God touched your life in some inexplicable and fundamental way, why won't He do the same to me?

But if you did get even a spark of indignation, then hear me out. The Bible goes on to actually say the above statement that I made is actually true - both of you and of me by ourselves - and we wouldn't be the respectable people that we think we are if not for the grace of God. This is the doctrine of total depravity of man. If you are now offended, please know that it is not my intent to do so - I only want to proclaim the truth in Christ and in God's Word. Don't curtail your emotions but don't let them overpower you either. Your emotions would lead you to understanding God. Truth may be bitter but truth in Christ is also liberating.

At this point, if you feel that you are not obligated to go through such difficulty to know about God and that God should reveal Himself to you if He so wants to, then trust me on this - you will not be doing God any favor by believing in Him, it is He who has done you a favor with the free gift of salvation made possible by His grace in His own begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and the blood He shed on the cross for you. God doesn't need man - it is man who needs God. And to think that God has done all this to save us out of His love for us should by itself merit our effort to know more about this loving God instead of treating Him with contempt, disdain and worse, indifference. Yea, the love and joy of being saved and to enter into that spiritual relationship with God and our Saviour is so worth all our sacrifices and pain we endure. Intellectually, emotionally and spiritually, God is the best thing we can get in all Heaven and earth and that is what He has promised us in love.

So if you really do want to know more about God, please come with a child-like innocence, ready to question and eager to accept, all the while believing that God exists and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him. If with this attitude you want to know more about God and His ways, then I shall discuss them in my following posts -
1. I can't understand why God is a consuming fire when He loves all the world.
2. I can't understand how I could be considered totally depraved.
3. I can't understand what God wants me to do in this world.
4. I can't understand how my faith can be accounted for righteousness.
and some more....

 

[Physicist]

Trust and faith

Where did your faith come from? Was it epiphany? Was it taught? Was it ingrained in your upbringing?
I have faith in many things. I have faith in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the greenness of growing grass, the coming of springtime and its blush of new life on the land. I have faith in death, and taxes, and the inherent goodness of man.
Why is faith in God so hard for me to come to terms with?

hi Denghis,
God gives us our faith, if you are lacking, pray for faith.
it's easy to have faith in the sun, moon and stars because you can see them, but it's not the same faith, you don't have faith the stars will save you, or do anything for you but shine. lol
yet Christian faith is believing before seeing. it is praying for something and believing it is already done for you.
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5: 7

as far as your question about how we come to terms with difference between the Word and science, i can say my faith is in God, not science or any scientist. scientists find new data to change what they once believed, etc. but God was, is and always be the same, He has never changed nor will He ever change. why would we listen to scientists when God knows it all?

God bless -

Science uses trust, i. e. conclusions based upon reason and evidence, to make predictions. Religion uses faith, 'i. e. conclusions without evidence, or in contradiction to evidence, to make its predictions. I will leave it up to the reader to guess which has proved the more reliable.

 

[chestertonrules]

Re: Trust and faith

Science uses trust, i. e. conclusions based upon reason and evidence, to make predictions. Religion uses faith, 'i. e. conclusions without evidence, or in contradiction to evidence, to make its predictions. I will leave it up to the reader to guess which has proved the more reliable.

Religion is based on evidence.

Science is based on empirically testable evidence.

If I have a personal experience with God, this is evidence.

Religion has led to a much more consistent understanding of the universe and human experience than has science.

Science turns in a completely new direction about once a century.

It can change from stating that the universe had no beginning to the Big Bang with no shame or regret.

Science gave us anthropedic global warming! Ha!

 

[Ed the Ned]

The problem with man is that he thinks his wisdom is greater than Gods. He does not want to accept that he cannot know everything. I suppose it goes back to the lie that we are like God. I have a simple answer to this debate:

Proverbs 3 vs 5-6

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."

Science uses trust, i. e. conclusions based upon reason and evidence, to make predictions. Religion uses faith, 'i. e. conclusions without evidence, or in contradiction to evidence, to make its predictions. I will leave it up to the reader to guess which has proved the more reliable.

So God says "Trust in the Lord" Christianity uses TRUST and according to your definition Trust is based upon reason and evidence.

With trusting the Lord we can walk in faith, which is not conclusions without evidence but a gift from God.

Ephesians 2 vs 8

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, And this is not of your own doing; it is a gift from God."

The Bible is the TRUTH. I don't expect all will believe it, but I Know that one day ALL will know that Christ is God and ALL will have to answer to HIM. No-one will be able to hide.

 

[Physicist]

What science does

Science is a religion with man as god.

Incorrect. The scientific method is a proven way that humans relate observations of the natural world and make predictions about future events. It does this by building models (hypotheses) and testing them in experiment. Models that have proved to be reliable and extensive are given the label, 'theory.' Acceptance of theories is always tentative, subject to further tests and refinements.

I ask you to objectively think what science has actually proved.
(In this post, I might be wrong over some facts - but I'd be happy if the essence of what I'm trying to say is conveyed in its entirety.)
Let's take a simple example of a layman observing an apple fall from a tree. He's just made an observation and it doesn't make him think any further - this we call an unscientific mind. But perhaps this same apple that fell started a flurry of questions in Newton's mind. His is what we call a scientific mind and as a scientist, he started to investigate. He went on investigating and finally concluded what is now hailed as a great discovery - note the word, discovery - that all objects experience 'gravity'. Brilliant - but what has it proved? Well, it has proved that apples don't fall for no reason and it has proved that we are still on the earth's surface because of gravity - because of gravity? Just gravity? Let me push the scientific mind a few more notches - what is gravity? Well, it's the attraction of objects according to the universal law of gravitation - then I ask, where did the universal law come from? The scientist might scratch his head and maybe shake his head over my asking him a non-empirical question. But nonetheless, where did the law come from? It just was there - how could anything just be there, that's not scientific! What I meant is that that's not my department, you'll have to ask the big-bang guys where it came from. So what has Newton and science done here upto this point. They've made an Observation explaining other observations. Newton observed that a universal law is at work that explains other observations such as the apple falling. Science is all about observing stuff and not actually proving its root causes. And doesn't it make perfect sense? I can only observe and guess what the function of a particular component is on an Intel motherboard but the truth of its purpose can be revealed only by the designer from Intel through his spec sheet or manual. Similarly, man and science can only keep making observations but the truth is revealed only by the Creator in His word, the Bible.

The genius of Newton was to build a model (Newton's Theory) that relates motion of objects on earth with the movement of astronomical bodies. Many brilliant thinkers before him thought this was impossible, thinking that there was something magical and mystical about the stars and planets. Newton's model has shown itself to be immensely useful to humanity and most of the calculations that civil and mechanical engineers do today use strictly Newtonian physics. THis is not to say that Newton discovered some "Law' of God. His model is now known to be only approximately correct. It fails for the description of the very large, very fast, or very small, where we need to use Einstein's Theory or Quantum Theory. Undoubtably, these Theories will be replaced by something else as we gain more experimental knowledge.

Unless you are a Platonist, and few scientists are, these models (theories) do not have an independent existence from humanity. They are just a best models that we have today that allow us to predict natural phenomena. None of these models need or imply the existence of god(s) or other supernatural entities, although none of them exclude the possibility provided the supernatural entity is restricted in its interactions with the natural world.

Let's push this further. I ask the big-bang geniuses what they've proved - and they gush about how they've made this latest discovery that holds promise of proving that the first particles could actually form from nothingness and disappear into nothingness thereby doing away with the need for a God to start the Bang. And I ask - what is nothingness? They blink and look at me as if I'm a retarded philosopher but I assure them that I'm asking them to define nothingness from a scientific viewpoint. They stammer and shoot something that boils down to - that which is beyond our human perception. Isn't that where God is? Isn't that where God says heaven is? Beyond human perception. Since when did humans start thinking that 'nothing' was something they knew all about - actually it was the other way around - anything that humans didn't know, they termed 'nothing'. So if you say particles can come from nothingness, you still haven't proved anything - you're just saying you don't know where they came from. And I'm saying I don't need to know anything about it because God said He created all heaven and earth and that suffices and overfills my wonder and amazement.

The 'Argument from Ignorance' ( I don't understand something so therefore God did it) is fallacious reasoning.

But these guys don't want to bite the dust - so they start off on all their other wonderful discoveries and theories that seems to contradict the account of God (is man here actually trying to say he got something right that God got wrong in His word). They talk about how the universe is now constantly expanding and how it can be traced back to the big-bang or whatever theory they have and I ask - how is all this happening? Well, the universe keeps expanding and - no, no,wait - how does it expand? The law of - stop going around in circles by giving me this law and that theory; just tell me how all the first laws were defined. Oh, that - that's easy, the universe kept expanding over so many many billions of years and the universe then settled into this perfect cosmic balance - HOW? What do you mean how, It just happened - are you telling me that all this was Chance? Well, to put it in better perspective, the probabilistic - is it Chance? Well, it seems likely that the universal laws came into force by chance but after that, the universe is being sustained by these laws. I ask, how did these laws become permanent? what, they ask. I repeat, how did these laws become permanent - how are they sustained if not by chance even now? It seems unscientific that a probabilistic cause gave rise to a deterministic event. If you're saying that particles or galaxies or whatever keep moving randomly by probabilistic chance, and they somehow reach a perfect balance at some point, what keeps them there even now because shouldn't they be still just driven by chance? they answer - No, they reach that perfect balance of attraction and repulsion at that point and therefore come under the control of the universal laws.... Hold on, I scream - but you people just told me that the laws itself arose out of this random chance; how can these very laws that rose out of chance now turn back and cease chance altogether. How can the universe 'settle down' or 'reach a balance' all by itself if not by chance? And if chance is all there is to it, the very same chance is what is at play right now in maintaining that very perfect balance every second of our lives which the human mind just gives a term 'Law' to this absolutely wonderful concept of absolutely Unbelievable Chance. I think my belief that God set the universe in order sets my heart at peace than to believe this lunacy of being a product of chance. Silence. Then they clear their throats and say that they never denied the supernatural, they just said that wasn't their department. I ask, then how are you so sure this is what happened so many billions of years ago just because this is what you see now. Why couldn't the universe have been laid out this way by God and then it could have been ordered to slowly expand instead of this insistence on a theory of a big-bang just because it doesn't correspond to your initial assumptions or should I say, presumptions. Is it the need for human supremacy that makes submission to divine authority so offensive? They cry foul and state that evolution is a pattern and that it yields itself to be traced back to the roots. I ask how do you know that evolution is true. Then they shrug their shoulders and complain that I'm just being difficult because of my ignorance and that I should learn more from the modern proponents of evolution.

See my previous comments about 'Argument from Ignorance.' Cosmologists say that the Universe is expanding because of actual empirical observations, including the famous Hubble redshift. The challenge has been to build models that relate this expansion to our existing knowledge database. Hence you have hypotheses such as Dark matter and Dark energy. The beauty of the scientific method is that it allows tests of these hypotheses. One does not have to accept them on blind faith.

 

[ivdavid]

@ Physicist

I appreciate your interest in all that I have posted. And in light of that, I'm surprised that you've misunderstood me. I thought I had made clear my intent through my posts and in the context of this thread - apparently not so. I shall try and be more specific in my goals next time but let me clarify my intentions in my earlier posts now.

I have nothing against science and its various models and systems of empirical testing and revising - not only do I have nothing against them, i also willingly embrace them. So the points you raised defending science and its methods are not in the least bit disputed by me.

But this thread was started by Denghis who had the following problem -

How do you resolve the contradictions between the Bible and science and maintain your faith in the Bible as the written Word of God?

Elsewhere, in the Christian talk and advice Board - 'how to respond' thread, this was mentioned.

If God was real we'd have proof, but we don't. Everything else was proven like Evolution and Gravity. Everything the church put down and stated was madness turned out to be true.

So you see, there are people who are willing to trust science as having proved something to be true while the Bible seems to contradict it and hence the natural question arises - how could God be wrong in His word and the consequent implication would be that there is no such God. These people hold their 'faith' in scientific proofs to be absolutely true - that is what I wanted to deny - that is what I did through all my posts.
For you have rightly pointed out that

They [scientific models] are just a best models that we have today that allow us to predict natural phenomena.

You also have been spot on in identifying that gravity has not been 'proved' in the absolute sense, which was wrongly perceived by the earlier unbeliever who believed that gravity and evolution were categorically proven.

His[Newton's] model is now known to be only approximately correct.

And i'm sure from the following statement of yours, you'd agree with me on evolution too being not yet 'proven' in the absolute sense - this is not to deny that their observations are false, just that their interpretations may be wrong.

Undoubtably, these Theories will be replaced by something else as we gain more experimental knowledge.

You see, I never intended to prove the existence of God because very early on in my posts, I stressed on the fact that God can neither be intellectualized nor emotionalized to convince an unbeliever. I didn't want to prove God's existence by the argument from ignorance - I wanted to show that science still was ignorant on a lot of things, thereby trying to convince these people who held certain scientific truths as absolute truths to change their minds about the absoluteness of their 'truths' or to accept that they were just being as 'religious' in their faith in science founded by man, as Christians are in God. I just wanted them to have an open mind when they approached Christianity by being unbiased in their 'absolute' views of science which seemed to be their obstacles to believing in God.

This is not to say that with the removal of these obstacles, they would surely be able to believe in God - not at all - I'm just removing some obvious obstacles. This is also not to imply that science has no absolutes - i would be the last person to say that. I know that man does have blood, that it is red colored, etc. and so on in so many other spheres of science. I just wanted to state that when it came to contradictions between God and science, I always chose God in faith while trying to point out to others that they were actually choosing science in faith, while mistaking it for absolute concrete evidences of truth. And the topics discussed predominantly are creationism and evolution which seem to go against the word of God. Both topics haven't been proven. Both haven't been contradicted either. Both have solid observations, hypotheses and theories. But there is still the possibility that they could be wrong. Why did the above mentioned believers deny this possibility of these theories being wrong - because by faith they accepted and not by some proof that they thought was evident. Science has at large been able to give very reliable models of understanding and more times than less has determined facts - so based on how science generally works, its reputation precedes it even where it's not applicable thereby leading to presumption. These presumptions are what I seek to clarify.

There are however some queries I have to ask of you which I shall do in a later post. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this over.

 

[Denghis]

I am humbled by the erudition exhibited by the many respondents to this thread, but most particularly the discourse between IVDAVID and PHYSICIST.
IVDAVID ‘s magnificent dissertation is truly a work of art and is deserving of the utmost admiration and respect. You, sir, have put in perspective a lifetime of confusion and uncertainty regarding this subject, which has belabored me for years.
Yet, PHYSICIST, to me, has an argument that I cannot dismiss, as it is more to the core element of what I believe, or at least that which I seem to be more comfortable with.
Belief in a God as perceived by man, and as documented by man, is ethereal in nature and difficult for me to grasp, and the unqualified faith in a creator as proposed by Christianity or any other religion is, at this time, beyond my powers of comprehension.
Science gives me concrete footings by which I can validate my perceptions of the environment in which I live, though, admittedly, cannot yet clarify all of the questions I have, and will not do so before I leave this world.
The crucial question we are all dealing with, I believe, is the fundamental origin of all that we know and recognize as that which makes us what we are, and why we are what we are. And thus, the inexplicable enigma that has befuddled us all down through countless ages makes itself manifest in our daily lives, because we don’t know…we are faithful, but we really don’t know.
I’m not sure that this question will be answered, ever, in the lifetime of man.
Don’t consider me to be Godless, just uncertain, as in reality we all are, and will be until we find the truth in our passing on to whatever awaits us beyond this world.
I love you all, you are good people, and I wish you peace in your hearts…
Dan

 

[ivdavid]

O Father, I thank You for all that You've done for us and I praise You for all that You will do in our lives. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Well, Dan, I'm sure glad to know that at least some of your ambiguities have ceased and I also thoroughly understand your apprehension towards unqualified faith. By the grace given by God, I will try and help you build your faith pointing to Christ. Please don't lose hope. I am repeating God's promise..
Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

I'm going to go back to what I said in my earliest post - you do need to believe in your mind that God exists, then read through Scriptures and then you'll be given the grace to completely believe it in your heart. What i'm saying is, come with an unbiased mind and start reading the Bible(again, if you've already read it) and then you'd be able to believe with all your heart - and you'd find the faith that you're searching for.

I'm also warning about satan's deceptions. I call what he's doing the 'dilution technique' - he dilutes everything the Bible says - satan goes about replicating it in so many other ways with such slight differences that it's hard to notice them but all these differences add up and take us really far from knowing the one true God. We arrive at the dilemma over what to believe. We begin to doubt our own capacities to discern the truth and in frustration resign to the fact that even if there is truth, we'd never be able to find it. Take the present circumstance - there are so many religions in the world, it becomes difficult to find out which one really is true. So a person would actually give up the task of sorting through all this and prefers to stick to whatever faith he started out with - or if his mind does not permit him to believe in something unseen, then he sticks to the perceivable world - namely defined and put forth by concrete findings of science, acknowledging that he'd rather be content with concrete findings that may be flawed rather than posing faith in something that might be absolutely true.

But what you've got to understand is that God never meant people to put 'blind' faith in Him. As you might have already realized - 'blind faith' is a misnomer the way it is used. Many people think blind faith is accepting something without absolutely any evidence while mere faith is not so. Then I ask, what is mere faith? Does it need a tiny hint of evidence? If so, then you don't have faith, you're making a speculation or estimation based on the extrapolation of that tiny hint of evidence. Here is how God defines faith.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
So clearly God says that there is hope but there will be no evidence of that hope - for if there is evidence then there is nothing to hope for, yet if you are sure that what you hope for will definitely come true based on God's promises and His ability to keep His promises, then that's faith and that faith will please God -
Heb 11:6 But 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 diligently seek Him.
The criteria laid here seems too simple for words yet is difficult for us. We can please God if only we'd believe that He exists but that's where all of us dither. Why God insists on such belief, I'll handle in a later post. But notice 2 key points laid out in the verses above - 1.there is hope and 2.God rewards those who seek Him earnestly. I've found the reward to be a revelation of Himself which undoubtedly is the most precious reward because He is the very definition of what is precious, though many other rewards might be included and added. But that's for a later discussion. Looking again at Point 1 - there is hope - that's a major differentiating factor between Christianity and all other world views.

So, here are the redefined terms -
Faith: substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Blind Faith: substance of things, the evidence of things not seen.

Do you see the difference? Faith is being sure of your hopes - if there is nothing to hope for, then that's 'blind faith'. If you were to take, say a pantheistic view - they simply state that your atma(Christian version of human spirit) enters the spiritual wholeness after your death - eventually, if they believe in rebirth. But they have no concept of the Christian 'soul' which is who we are. We don't need science to tell us that we have an instinct of self-preservation, experience itself tells us. Why do we want to self-preserve - because we find death unnatural. As if we actually hoped that we would never die - 'we' being us ourselves wholly conscious instead of some abstract part of some spiritual life-force. At the same time that we want to self-preserve, we also feel a lack of peace or contentment in this world as if we hoped for a perfect world with no sorrow or suffering or confusion. So you see, we actually hope for a perfect world in which we can live forever.

Here, many will say that 'God' is just a product of human imagination to help us satisfy the above hope because we're too weak in the mind to accept reality as it is. What a pessimistic, depressing view? But I demand - who is man to conclude on what reality with respect to life and death is? If we were indeed created, then only God can reveal that we were created for how else could we know - and the one true God has revealed just that. If we weren't created, then there is no conclusive means of finding out how we exactly came about, so there is no point in even trying. Science can by all means be used to make further observations about how the universe works - but no definitive conclusion on matters of life, death, creation, miracles, God, Spiritual realm etc. can ever be made by science as shown in my previous posts. Has man proved anything in any of this? Can he prove anything conclusively on any of this? As I've shown in the previous posts, he never ever can do so in the future either - for all the arguments put forth in my posts against scientific conclusions stand valid even in the future. At what stage can science conclude on answers - when can science triumphantly state that they have gained all the knowledge there is to be gained? They will have to reach a point of how something 'just' began and then this-and-that happened this-and-that way. As C.S. Lewis pointed out - "An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity".

The crucial question we are all dealing with, I believe, is the fundamental origin of all that we know...

Please don't consider this as the crucial question to believing in God because God has revealed the fundamental origin and He can't lie about what He says He did. If you're looking for validation of origins from science, that can never come conclusively. So unless you believe in God, creationism can never be answered - so don't keep that as the criteria for believing in God. It would be like missing the forest for a tree. I understand your dilemma - you want to believe in God but you don't want to do it blindly. I too agree - all I'm saying is that you should refrain from expecting science to give you the reason/hint to start believing in God. There are shepherds who look at the stars in the sky and immediately perceive and worship the one true God who created everything - there are also people who look at the same stars and worship the stars instead of the Creator who created them. There are others who look at the stars and decide they would find out how the stars came about so that they can 'determine' that there is no such Creator. All are done in a matter of faith. I believe that if you start knowing more about God by reading the Bible, through which God has revealed all that we need to know about Him, you'd find faith.

We just can't conclude on anything except by the revelation of God who's created everything - and He has indeed revealed His creative authority in His written word. Well, man by nature doesn't want to subject himself to the mercies of God because of his rebellion to claim supremacy over his own life and so rather goes to any lengths to stubbornly deny the existence of such a God even if it means to face absolutely no meaning in what would become a purposeless life apart from God. This rebellious nature is what satan feeds on - for he is powerless apart from our choosing to believe in his deceptions. God wants us to have the free gift of eternal life in the perfect world, though we are all undeserving of it, if only we'd come to Christ to be cleansed of our rebellious nature. But If we are to still hold our fort against such a loving, gracious offer just because we want autonomy, then this incurs God's wrath on us - for He tolerates no evil and anyone against God is evil by the very definition of God. Then again, those who are eagerly seeking God, believing they will find him, will not be left ashamed.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone believing on Him shall not be put to shame."

To conclude and summarize till this point -
1. Science can never answer anything conclusively regarding God/life/death. To wait for such answers to come through science leads to wasting our life in meaninglessness instead of enjoying all that God has prepared for us. Science does have its uses - it help us see God's glory manifest everywhere.
2. Blind faith is not what God wants. He wants people to know Him and love Him - He has made Himself apparent to all - but we suppress the truth and do not acknowledge Him because of our stubbornness and rebellion. But people who want to know more about Him and who seek Him - reading/listening to His Word, the Bible, while believing in our minds that God exists will lead to God's revelation in our hearts and consequently the faith by which we are saved.
3. The search for truth will be rewarded with our hopes of eternal life in a perfect world being assured and with us being set free from all hopelessness and despair under satan's deceptions and slavery.(This hope is not baseless - more elaboration in later posts)
4. Among all the religions in the world, the one true religion can be discerned according to the definitions of God and faith.(why take the effort and how to discern this - in a later post)

So, please continue your quest and don't quit. But lay down any biases or prejudices and read the Bible like a little child, believing in your mind that God exists - you'll soon grow to know Him in your heart.

 

[TanNinety]

The crucial question we are all dealing with, I believe, is the fundamental origin of all that we know and recognize as that which makes us what we are, and why we are what we are. And thus, the inexplicable enigma that has befuddled us all down through countless ages makes itself manifest in our daily lives, because we don’t know…we are faithful, but we really don’t know.
I’m not sure that this question will be answered, ever, in the lifetime of man.
Don’t consider me to be Godless, just uncertain, as in reality we all are, and will be until we find the truth in our passing on to whatever awaits us beyond this world.
I love you all, you are good people, and I wish you peace in your hearts…

I can agree with your conclusion with reservations Dan. Not all are uncertain. I would bet that ivdavid and chetertonrules are completely certain in their personal experience with God. For them, their beliefs are based on evidence that is personal to them. Many form their beliefs on rejection of this evidence. More often than not, this rejection of evidence is due to belief in science. Not because science falsifies this evidence but because science does not deal with this evidence. This is a step of faith that though denying many practice. Unfortunately science has nothing to say about God. However it can be used to test the auxiliary hypothesis of religious texts. We can see this in young earth vs old earth sort of debates. Just as a certain specific proposition of evolution can be falsified yet the theory as a whole be true, religion can be the same way. The gist of ivdavid’s post as I see hinges on showing that one cannot use science as a tool for disbelief in God.

I concur you are on the right path of uncertainty, but just don’t assume that you will not find your answer. That bias might as well keep you from your answer.

you do need to believe in your mind that God exists, then read through Scriptures and then you'll be given the grace to completely believe it in your heart. What i'm saying is, come with an unbiased mind and start reading the Bible

While I really appreciate your efforts ivdavid, I suspect, it will not compute well in Dan’s mind. To him come unbiased is a call for come thinking that you do not know if a God exists or not. I am afraid that’s when you lose him when you say that he needs to believe in his mind that God exists before he reads the scripture. It’s a catch 22.