I believe that man is made in the image of God, so yes, I agree that we have a spiritual nature. However, that is not what I think we are discussing. What does the naturalistic-materialist believe as to the origins of spirituality?
…or better, what does one say when someone says you cannot prove there is a God or the like? Is the Universe really too young for random-chance to serve as an explanation? Running off the reservation is a characteristic of these blogs, nonetheless!
In my case I think it is an adaption to developing and then living in a culture that overemphasizes abstract reasoning. If one thinks that the words they put together in their head is all there is to mental life, then they need another outlet. Spirituality/religiousity fills the bill. I have no doubt there is something more, but I assume it is on-board rather than ‘out there’. I’m a materialist in that I think everything arises from the material, however some of it transcends the material. But as with consciousness and brains, I don’t think there is any transcendence without a material underpinning.
1 Like
Thanks, Robin. A good friend of mine is a Cosmologist; he knew / met Hawking. The following is not how mathematicians would use statistics, nevertheless he gave me the probability of life evolving from the big bang 10 to 1,023th power. (There are only 10 to the 80th atoms in the universe), Mathematicians consider any event as being “impossible” (highly improbable) as 10 to the 40th. On the other hand an “adequate intelligence”… God being eternal, infinite and incomprehensible is way, way beyond an “adequate intelligence”.
My unbelieving friends postulate that with an infinite number of universes, one would eventually emerge, as is evident by our existence. Gently, I remind them that this conjecture is no longer science, but rather a philosophical assertion based on their (faith) commitment to a naturalistic world and life view.
1 Like
Thanks, Mark for your thoughtful reply. I agree from. your presuppositional framework your reasoning holds. The consequences of such a position would imply that ethical / moral systems might include genocide, murder, etc. How about the following: The 10 Commandments are a reflection of the character of God, who is His infinite wisdom mad us in His image, thus allowing us to reflect His character. To the degree we do, peace and harmony are present, the opposite being chaos.
P.S. I had a 10 hour discussion that lasted throughout the night, when I was much, much younger. We had nothing in common philosophically. I “walked” with him as far as I could, finally, I turned and said, “but you know God exists”. At which point he looked at me an said, “yes, I do.” He was deeply thankful that I listened and responded to his objections, not exhaustively, but sufficiently. (Of course, I was prying for wisdom the whole night as I spoke.)
Mark, pleas read, or perhaps again, the Gospel of John asking 3 questions to God: Who is Jesus? Why did he come? Is there a reason for being?
Grace and Peace…
Hugh
1 Like
Acc. to the N.T. we know God by experience, so belief in God is not a theory and doesn’t need proof. By “experience” I don’t mean that the furniture flies around the room. There are many ways God is experienced but the main one is that the gospel is recognized as the truth about God from God, and the recognition is a type of self-evidence. More than that, the N.T. also tells us that God has created everything “visible or invisible” (Col. 1). Taken at face value, that means he created the laws of proof - the laws of logic and math. If God created those laws, it follows that his existence is not subject to them so that trying to prove his existence actually demotes him from being the Creator of everything to being only another creature subject to those laws. In brief: if God created the laws of proof then whatever can be proven would thereby not be God.
1 Like
I wonder what you think makes up an ethical system or morality? I was a philosophy undergrad but I don’t think I understood what we were really talking about until started reading Jonathon Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. Are you familiar with his distinction between the rider and the elephant? It was a book recommended to me here by @Mervin_Bitikofer and others. What we think is not the most determinative factor in our moral behavior. I don’t think there is anything about the way I think about morality which would more likely incline me to genocide than it would any Christian. Everyone is a sinner as you all say, everyone is capable of choosing evil and no choice we make exempts us from that capacity, not even Christian belief.
1 Like
I have no doubt something exists which has given rise to God belief. I hold it in the highest regard. However I know it to be a mystery. I am not a Christian because I do not accept the Bible as being more than a work of men. I do not think it fitting to impose anyone’s concept of God on the mystery itself.
1 Like
We are discussing a possible proof of God. So who we are makes a point.
We are conscious beings, i.e., God has made us with consciousness and existence.
Consciousness is awareness + knowledge.
So the issue of ethics.
For a person to have a conscience he/she needs both.
The knowledge includes that of others, their issues, their feelings etc. Only with this knowledge can we have empathy and compassion.
A person who deadens their conscience effectively dismisses some knowledge of others, which in effect breaks the spiritual connectivity with others. Thus they have no love, so no empathy, no compassion.
So the question is where is the knowledge? This knowledge is common to all at birth, except where a person has deadened their conscience in a previous life. We can ignore that since Christianity maybe doesn’t accept reincarnation and it is not important to our argument anyway.
The knowledge is contained within The Mind of God, The Beloved.
I like this as a fine tuning self-selection effect rebuttal:
So you wind up revering ‘the mystery’ instead of the Source. I think there is marvelous mystery in how God acts interventionally in providence, interventional activity for which there is evidence. There is mystery in the existence of beauty and awe, as well.
So there is no shortage of mystery, but there are objective answers, too.
What does the Koran say about Jesus?
Sorry, off subject.
I have no choice at all in what I allow as evidence.
The Koran accepts Jesus as a prophet, not God. Our belief is that there is no other God, but God. That is to say God is One.
I think though that it is valid to see many gods and goddesses as representative of the attributes of God. For instance in the Hindu religion there are 33 million gods and goddesses, but they are all attributes of Brahman, The Absolute, i.e., God.
Judaism and Christianity also believe that.
I would think that the status of Messiah would be higher than prophet.
Not quite.