Featured by the human race since Genesis 3.
1 Like
My reasons for belief… I have posted them before. And link them frequently… And all of these are connected to the details of what I believe and you can find explanations of this linked below.
- As a physicist I have to ask myself as other physicists have asked themselves whether life as we experience really can be summed up in the mathematical equations of physics. My necessarily subjective conclusion, the same as many others, is that the very idea is absurd. Science puts our experience through the filter of mathematical glasses and to be sure this methodology has proven marvelously successful at not only explaining many things but discovering new things about the world that we never expected. But this is just looking at life in one particular way and I think it is quite foolish to confuse this way of looking at things with the reality itself.
- It was through existentialism that I made a connection that first gave some meaning to the word “God” for me (I was not raised in a religion unless it is the “religions” of liberalism and psychology). I came to the conclusion that the most fundamental existentialist faith was the faith that life was worth living. I also concluded that for theists their faith in God played the same role for them in their lives, suggesting that the two kinds of faith were really the same thing in different words. That equivalence basically became my working definition for “God”, and from there it was a matter of judging what understanding of God best served that purpose.
- Physicists experience shock and cognitive dissonance when they first understand what quantum physics is saying for it seems to contradict the logical premises of physics and scientific inquiry itself. But there is one thing that makes sense of it to me at least. If the universe was the creation of a deity who wanted keep his fingers in events then these facts of quantum physics would provide a back door in the laws of nature through which He could do so without disturbing the laws of nature. I am not saying that any such conclusion is necessitated by the scientific facts; only that on this subjective level where quantum physics created such cognitive dissonance for so many physicists, that this idea would make sense of it – to me
- I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments of the eastern mystics that logic is stultifying trap for human thought and consciousness. The result is that even if I found no other reasons to believe in a God or a spiritual side to reality and human existence I would very much see the need to fabricate them for the sake of our own liberty of thought. We need a belief in something transcendent in order for us transcend the limitations of logic and mundane (or material) reasons to give our uniquely human ability for abstraction more substance and life.
- I feel there are profound pragmatic reasons to reject the idea that reality is exclusively objective because it immediately takes any conviction about reality to a conclusion that the people who disagree with you are detached from reality and delusional or in some other way defective, I don’t believe that this is at all conducive to the values and ideals of a free society. The plain fact is that our direct contact with reality is wholly subjective and it is the objective which is the abstraction that has to be fabricated. Now I certainly think there is very good evidence that there is an objective aspect to reality but I see nothing to support taking this to the extreme of presuming that reality is exclusively objective.
Reasoning from these to what I believe is here and here.
However, I suppose I can say that I am a bit of an agnostic theist because I do not believe that objective knowledge of the existence of God is possible. A belief in God is more about the necessary subjectivity of life where we must choose what we want, how to live, what to believe, and who we are. This is unavoidable for many reasons. For example psychologists have established as fact that human perception cannot be separated from human belief. We can strive for some objectivity in specialized activities like science, but claiming that you live your life according to science is just plain incoherent and delusional. It likely means you haven’t a clue what science really is about.
4 Likes
Here are my thoughts – intended to be appropriate for 9 year olds (after visiting an exhibition on Evolution with a school class I assist):
- The huge diversity of living things and their complex interdependencies testify to an imaginative designer and not just random mutations.
- Evolution is based on the principle of survival of the fittest, i.e. fighting without any pity for the defeated. But human society requires moral values and rules, which come from God.
- The theory of evolution only describes the physical development of animals. But human beings also have mental and spiritual abilities that far surpass those of animals: language, writing, art, music, contemplation, planning, scientific research, medicine, technical developments, etc. And also the yearning to seek and worship God.
I’ve read Richard Dawkins (and others). They have done great research and made good observations. But, for me, they leave many spiritual questions unanswered. I prefer to accept God’s initiative, not only in designing all of this fantastic natural world but also in visiting us in Jesus, so we could get to know Him.
2 Likes
“Survival of the fittest” and “fighting without any pity for the defeated” are very popular, early, and widespread, but inaccurate, representations of evolution. In reality, evolution is survival of the fit enough. Any genome that produces directions for making an organism good enough to enable it to survive to reproductive age has a chance of contributing to the next generation. It’s not only the “fittest”. Indeed, defining “fittest” is difficult, if one wishes to be biologically honest rather than advancing a social agenda. The best option under one situation is often not as useful under other conditions. Being fit enough to survive requires balancing a large number of considerations. Also, there are many ways to achieve a goal. TV specials on nature tend to be more exciting if they focus on intense competition. But the reality is that one may survive through competing, through cooperation, or through going off and doing your own thing. What will work best in particular situations varies. However, for humans in particular, with long memories, extensive communication abilities, and large social networks, cooperation is likely to be the most effective long-term strategy. Trying to get ahead by putting others down is likely to get retaliation.
But this gets at an important reason for theism. If atheism is true, then there is no ultimate meaning. Things are the way they are; there is no reason beyond preference and practicality to say that something is right or wrong. Atheists can have strong personal morals, but there is no particular reason for me to choose to follow such if I don’t want to. When we perceive suffering as an ethical and existential problem, rather than just as something I don’t like, we are assuming that there is some sort of ideal right state of affairs which reality doesn’t measure up to. Theism provides a valid framework for ethics.
Of course, it is true that one can think of evolutionary reasons why particular ethical principles could provide a genetic advantage to groups adopting them. Biblical ethics are not arbitrary hoops to jump through, but rather are guidelines to what is good for humanity. But it is possible to think of evolutionary reasons why unethical behavior might get one ahead as well, nor is there a particular reason for me to do what would enhance my evolutionary success if I don’t want to.
8 Likes
Great reply, I loved it!
As a physicist, what do you think of fine-tuning?
1 Like
Sounds like my high school cross-country coach: you don’t have to come in first, you just have to reach the finish line.
I suspect that “fittest” came from looking at animals where only the top make gets to reproduce – horses, chimps, etc.
1 Like
I have conflicting thoughts on the matter. On the one hand, I believe God designed the universe to support life. On the other hand, I do not think this is a valid argument. We have only this universe to examine and thus no means for judging the likelihood of other possibilities. Talk of probabilities which cannot be calculated are nothing but empty rhetoric and hot air. And thus like all other arguments for the existence of God this is rationalization and self-justification for subjective choices – i.e. there is no rational basis for expecting other people to agree.
4 Likes
I wonder at what point our personal view becomes important or not?
Richard
certainly its the origin of the bloke whinging that he has to go home from the pub now because the wife… 
Mitchel i like the amount of thought that goes into your post there, however, in all honesty i have to suggest that in producing your own explanation of God there, you are overcomplicating the entire notion of what is actually claimed by Christians to be going on here.
I would suggest you agree that death is an inescapable reality?
Fundamentally Atheism offers no alternative other than Kaput? I mean lets face it, the atheist doesnt pretend to accept anything beyond this life…certainly they do not appear to me to seek any notion other than Kaput…perhaps you might give me a different description of Christopher Hitchen’s last recorded thoughts on the matter?
When i read your post, i get this feeling that you are suggesting that in order for you to “meet the grade” so to speak, you must work harder?
Given Christianity makes no such claim, where do you get this “I must work harder to be more Godly and thus meet the grade” notion from exactly?
I would argue that your overcomplicating is a result of not allowing Christ to explain himself to you…all that is required are two things:
- Follow Godly law
- Believe in the gospel
Christ summed up the above saying
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
and
in as much as you do it to the least of these my brethren, you do it to me"
The point is, trying to define or explain God…the God of the bible by searching science experiments…that is overcomplicating what is going on here! Whether you are willing to accept it or not, the bible story to this point i think can be summed up in the following way…(its a first draft new analogy I’ve just thought up whilst responding to your post)
We are somewhat like intelligent pawns on a real life chess board. God is on one side, Satan the other…and they move us by whispering in our ears. We then make the choices, which of us moves and where we move to. One day, the game will be over, and based on the halfway mark of the match (which is now historical of course), Satan’s team appears to have made an unrecoverable mistake, he went for the King too soon and did not realise the weakness of his attack. It was a strategy and attack which those on Gods team saw coming from the get go, because they already knew Satans strategy, they had seen it before and were prepared for it. What happens next is a foregone conclusion. God and his supporters are confident…they smell victory and are leaning forward in anticipation, its simply a matter of time now before Satan is “checkmate” and loses the game. He is a proud one though, he isnt going to lay down his king…he will continue on until only one man is left standing “his king…a metaphor for himself” (the king we protect is metaphorically Christ i think).
Actually, “survival of the fittest” was Herbert Spenser’s description of how the best rise to the top in laissez-faire capitalism, before Darwin published on biological evolution.
3 Likes
Adam, I re-read his post twice and can’t figure out where you’re getting this.
Sorry, but that is exactly what Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians against! It’s also exactly what the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was about, and there the Apostles and elders and the Holy Spirit said it was wrong.
From those two sets of scripture, if you want “two things”, they should be:
- Trust in Christ
- Live worthy of the Gospel
For the second, these are good summations:
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
and
As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
No – that gives glory to Satan! Satan is not God’s opponent because he is a created being; Satan’s opponent is the archangel Michael, whose very name is a response to Satan’s intent: Satan says, “I will be like God!”, while Mi-kha-ayl means “Who is like God?!” (I always think of it with an “Oh, yeah?” in front). As Luther wrote in his great hymn A Mighty Fortress, “one little word can fell him”, where “him” indicates Satan.
Besides, Satan can only be in one place at a time, so most of that “whispering” you mention comes from his (unruly at best) minions.
That God and Satan are opponents as though they are equals somehow is an element of the heresy called Manichaeism, not Christianity.
Oh, he’s already checkmated – or perhaps, as a Lutheran priest/pastor put it, “Mate in three”. Satan looks at the ‘board’ and knows it’s over and an honorable player would lay down his king – it’s just that like a little child he insists the game isn’t over until all his pieces are eliminated.
Oh, Satan would love it if that were true! Christ doesn’t need our protection; Satan no longer dares to confront Him directly – the next time that happens it will be “Party’s over; everyone out of the pool” time.
1 Like
No wonder a large political element in the U.S. appears to delight in social Darwinism.
3 Likes
Mitchel claimed in a 2018 post that he is influenced by “existentialism”…the notion that humans are unique individuals with free will to create their own meaning and purpose in life
I am not an expert on Existentialism, however, my limited understanding is that they are not actually Christian. Perhaps I’m wrong on this?
I have started reading up on it…if i find something different i will update this post and if required correct my thoughts on the matter.
**UPDATE**
Ok, so here is my dilemma…Mitchel appears to me to suggest he fits into the latter category illustrated below:
it can thus assume a theistic form. On the other hand, it can hold that human existence, posing itself as a problem, projects itself with absolute freedom, creating itself by itself, thus assuming to itself the function of God. As such, existentialism presents itself as a radical atheism. Or **it may insist on the finitude of human existence—i.e., on the limits inherent in its possibilities of projection and choice. As such, existentialism presents itself as a humanism.**Existentialism | Definition, History, Characteristics, Examples, Types, & Facts | Britannica
My response to your statement there is to offer the complete bible text that addresses it:
Revelation 12
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
true, i agree that the cross was the point of no return for Satan. However, historically the plan of salvation has not yet been completed.
The Old Testament Tabernacle/Sanctuary model clearly illustrates to us that the redemptive process is ongoing.
Christ gave his pawns, with the help of the Holy Spirit, a task…
Matthew 24:14
And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world , so that all nations will hear it, and then , finally, the end will come
Right now, Satan is trying to take out as many of those pieces on that chess board as he possibly can…so the whisperings continue right up until the close of probation just before the Second Coming of Christ.
Revelation 22:11
“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still”.
( i have already corrected you on this before btw)
You have the wrong understanding of Pauls writing to the Galations. How do i know that? Because the apostle John:
- the last surviving disciple and apostle in the New Testament Cannon
- who died about 30 years after Paul,
- was also one of Christ’s own disciples
- was a first hand witness to Christs ministry
said in Revelation 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Satans intent was never to be like God…that was his former self [Lucifer’s] claim before he was thrown out of heaven. Satan has already realised that he is shackled and bound to a miserable fate…he has known that since before the fall of mankind illustrated in Genesis chapter 3.
The temptation and fall of mankind into sin were not kaput…the battle over this earth it was never about that. The battle is about the claim that God is unjust and unfair.
The sin of mankind was simply an attempt at forcing the implementation of the wages of sin is death and the law! God got around that issue by prophesying to the “serpent” [Satan/The Devil] in Genesis 3 that he would die for the sins of His own creation…proving he isn’t unjust or unfair!
I don’t have an issue with the "minions " statement…all you are doing there is scaling the marks to make a nice bell curve. It makes no difference to the big picture.
*I really enjoy your thoughts on these issues St Roymond, however, perhaps we have gotten offtopic here...however i will just point out that my thoughts are evidenced. if you wish to discuss it further(and i really would like that), perhaps we had better start a new thread?*
There is Christian existentialism; Kierkegaard is an oft-referenced representative (and is read by a number of folks here).
Exactly – Michael is Satan’s opponent.
That makes Christ a liar. He didn’t say, “That’s a good start”, He said “it is finished!”
The sanctuary model has to be interpreted according to Christ, not the other way around – demanding that Christ has to conform to some notion about the sanctuary is idolatry.
Patience is not salvation. In terms of salvation, putting anything about law or commandments first is heresy. Why? Because we are plainly taught that Christ ended our obligation to the law, nailing it to the Cross.
“Former self”? That’s nowhere in the text.
There’s no indication that Satan thought he couldn’t win right up until Jesus showed up at the gates of hell and kicked them in.
This is a strange and novel idea. No, the battle is and always has been about making humans part of God’s family. God has nothing to prove to Satan, He owes nothing to Satan.
1 Like
If its finished amigo…wthy are we still all here?
Clearly it isn’t finished is it? So you have misread the text!
The fact we are still here…that’s a fundamental observation of my reality and I’m sure its certainly yours as well since I’m talking to you using a computer over the internet and we are already in heaven!
omg you don’t read English very well do you…what is the point of the text? Is not the explanation of what a saint is found in the “second part” of the passage?
“here are those who keep the commandments and have the testimony/faith of Jesus” (do i really need to explain this to one who already can read English and claims to have a tertiary education?)
You are Trinitarian right? )id suggest you either agree with the referencing that proves Lucifer is now Satan or, give up Trinitarianism because its not in the text! (you are insulting me with stupid answers)
you continue to make a gross error there…that was true of LUCIFER…he lost that battle in heaven and was cast out. Satans desire is only to ruin the inevitable by taking as many down with him as possible.
That satans fate was sealed at the cross, i agree with this notion, but what is interesting is that the damnation of Satan is loudest in the New Testament.
This i think is one evidence that perhaps redemption was on offer to him up until the cross. I think a second evidence was his entry into the “council meeting” in the book of Job.
Firstly, Christ rested in the grave…“the dead know nothing”
Second, i stand by my statement of the reason for all of this…that God is proving his innocence against the charge made by Lucifer before the war in heaven…
Google AI
Social “Darwinism” is indeed Spenser’s big thing. It is odd that some who would be inclined to attack evolution are all in favor of social “Darwinism”, when marketed as “free enterprise”, “capitalism”, etc.
4 Likes
Because the establishment of redemption and salvation does not mean history ends. This is basic biblical theology: Christ has done all that is needed. Anything else is not Christian, it is cultic.
So you put your experience above Christ’s word from the Cross.
Those commandments cannot be the ones from the Old Testament because the Apostles and the Holy Spirit reduced those to just four admonitions in Acts 15. The commandments of God, then, can only be the two greatest that Jesus reiterated:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
“Former self” is not in the text – don’t change the subject. Lucifer and Satan are the same; there is no different self. Yes, he underwent a progression from just meddling in the Garden to accusing God’s saint in Job to confronting Jesus and trying to do one of two things – turn Him aside from His path, or find out what the Plan was – but his self is the same.
Where do you get the idea that Satan and Lucifer are different beings?
Some of the church Fathers argued about that. It makes interesting reading, though not terribly edifying.
Peter says Jesus was a bit busy while in the grave, preaching to “the spirits in prison”. Traditionally that is taken to mean He went to Sheol and proclaimed the Gospel to them all; another tradition is that He went to the spirits of the Watchers to tell them sorry, their chief didn’t win, the Incarnate Word did, and they were going in being kept in chains of gloomy darkness. Either or both are possible – my view is it was both.
As for “the dead know nothing”, death’s power was broken at the Cross, so it had no hold on Jesus, so the rules changed – for us, too, since Paul wrote that to depart (i.e. die) is to be with the Lord.
What charge? The only place I can find that idea is in the writings of a false prophet.
1 Like
And as “libertarianism”, while actually being propertarianism, the exaltation of property, especially real estate. I can only see that as the worship of Mammon.
3 Likes
I like - Love watching bee’s collect their pollen. I stand amazed when these little ones working so diligently go buzzing from one flower to the next: WOW. I get really up close to the flower and see them collecting pollen and storing it on their pollen baskets. My smile is wide and yes, I have cried with tears of joy and with a heart of thanks that a magnificent event is taking place, and I am right there to witness the glory of creation what a gift. Those lovely flowers growing in a garden of delight to me is a miracle of love and this miracle has been shared and somehow given to all, and I am eternally grateful to be a part of it-truly thankful.
1 Like