What is there to God in the "here and now"

[cnk12]

Is there anything more to God in the here and now that we couldn't just as easily attribute to our own mind?

I sincerely desire the truth, especially in the area of is there a God, and if so, who is it? Where I find myself on the issue is pretty near the middle. In 1998, I was baptized and attended what I consider a really nice humble Bible based Church that meets in a rented space, there are no salaries or benefits for anyone; and all the funds it collects are used for Church supplies, charities and funding missionaries. After searching a great many years, I had finally found enough evidence to convince myself there was a God, and that Jesus Christ was the living God. Over time however, my faith eroded as I faced lingering doubts. I take responsibility for that; because the more I learned, the more I came to doubt. The more questions I asked, the more I doubted.

Starting on the Christian side, I still think it’s more reasonable to assume there’s a creator than not. Certainly the idea of the entire universe being compressed to the size of a pea or singularity as in before the Big Bang is a least as miraculous (if not more) than a creator. Moral Relativity, the God sized hole in each of us, free will, love, the complexity of life are all compelling arguments for God. IMHO Jesus Christ is easily the most credible of the world religions. The evidence for Christ’s resurrection is strong. What I initially found most inspiring about the Bible were the prophecies and fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus. In addition was the evidence of a higher power via scripture that was beyond the understanding of the time. For examples, the description of crucifixion before it was invented, the description of the flow of blood and water when pierced proving Christ’s death.

On my Agnostic side, I have difficulty with Christ’s validation of the Old Testament, and God’s commanding the slaughter of groups of people. I understand the idea of Israel being a Theocracy and that it was God’s judgement, but considered with some of the laws set forth in Deuteronomy, such scriptures sound like they are limited by man’s own understanding of world at the time. To me, it doesn’t have the timeless clear message and ring of truth the New Testament writings have. The fossil record is clear about the ascent and evolution of man. The way it happened doesn’t seem to gel with the concept of having a soul. If the fossil record is the result of a manipulation by Satan, I would think God would give us something to counteract it like talking from the sky to us or some other indication that He is with us. Did He just stop interacting with man with Jesus’ ascension? Why would He do that and not tell us? This leads me to the fact that I’ve never seen or had an indication outside of feelings or thoughts I could have easily generated in my own mind, that God is with us. If anyone has, I’d really love to hear about it. The first generation A.D. died based on a faith they acquired by seeing and hearing, ours is read from two thousand years old scripture.

I realize these are just opinions mixed with a few facts. I know I’m not being specific with my Biblical references, but I tink most know which I’m talking about, right? If someone wants or needs me to, I’ll respond with the specific references. They’re the same ones most atheists bring up. While the beliefs I had at one time were realized by the combined weight of a lot of pieces of evidence, I can’t help but find these other arguments equally weighty evidence. I don’t mean to be disrespectful or arrogant towards God, and/or tell Him how to be God, or that He has to prove Himself to me; I just want to feel more sure than 51 to 49, or even 60/40. That He's there. Thanks for reading.

[jlay]

The fossil record is clear about the ascent and evolution of man.

If you are a person of doubt, then why in the world do you state this as a fact, when it simply isn't.

The fossil record is constructed by man. The earth has fossils. They don't speak, they don't say anything, and they certainly don't come with a date and description. The 'record' is a construct, and it is hardly clear.
But even if it was clear, as you say, the resurrection has strong support. And if that is true, then what does the rest really matter?

[PaulSacramento]

On my Agnostic side, I have difficulty with Christ’s validation of the Old Testament, and God’s commanding the slaughter of groups of people. I understand the idea of Israel being a Theocracy and that it was God’s judgement, but considered with some of the laws set forth in Deuteronomy, such scriptures sound like they are limited by man’s own understanding of world at the time. To me, it doesn’t have the timeless clear message and ring of truth the New Testament writings have. The fossil record is clear about the ascent and evolution of man. The way it happened doesn’t seem to gel with the concept of having a soul. If the fossil record is the result of a manipulation by Satan, I would think God would give us something to counteract it like talking from the sky to us or some other indication that He is with us. Did He just stop interacting with man with Jesus’ ascension? Why would He do that and not tell us? This leads me to the fact that I’ve never seen or had an indication outside of feelings or thoughts I could have easily generated in my own mind, that God is with us. If anyone has, I’d really love to hear about it. The first generation A.D. died based on a faith they acquired by seeing and hearing, ours is read from two thousand years old scripture.

What if you view the OT and NT together as a progressive revelation of God's word to ancient man?
Look at us NOW.
Look how hard it is for man NOW to take something as "truth" even if it is proven by science.
Imagine if you will, ancient man 3000 years ago, 4000 years ago and now imagine someone explaining to THEM how the universe works as WE KNOW it NOW.
Then realize that was NEVER the intent of God when He spoke to the writers of the various works of the bible.
Realize that God HAD to accomodate His revelation to not only the MEN he was dealing with, but the people THEY were dealing with.
The same people that, even after seeing all his works, still turned on Him as soon as they had the chance.
We must take what is written in accordance to WHY it was written, by whom and to who.

God still interacts with Us today, via the HS, that speaks to us, by the universe that He created that speaks to us, by LOVE of which God is the source, that speaks to Us.

[cnk12]

Thanks for responding jlay, I appreciate it. In my view, the vast majority of people that have dedicated their lives to studying fossils agree that man seems to have evolved from an ape like creature. I have trouble aligning that with the various Chritian perspectives. To answer your question, I see support for the resurrection, but it's a question of the strength of the claim. There has been support or evidence for lots of things that turn out to be wrong. My position is akin to this; I would believe in Jesus as God, using the standards of a civil court, but not by the standards in criminal court, i.e. by a preponderence of the evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt. Having reached that point, I was baptized and reached out to the Holy Spirit. What I've felt could have easily come from my mind, and doesn't "feel" real. Maybe I'm not sincere enough, and maybe I'll get there yet. I'm glad for you in any case.

Thank you for responding PaulSacramento; I especially appreciate your answer. It helps resolve some things for me. Though I so want something I can really grasp like even a dream, I also realize that even when Jesus walked the earth, most were doubters. Have you felt or had any experiences with the Holy Spirit that increased or cemented your faith?
Thanks again.

[1over137]

Hi cnk12, maybe this could help: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/testimony.html

[PaulSacramento]

Thank you for responding PaulSacramento; I especially appreciate your answer. It helps resolve some things for me. Though I so want something I can really grasp like even a dream, I also realize that even when Jesus walked the earth, most were doubters. Have you felt or had any experiences with the Holy Spirit that increased or cemented your faith?
Thanks again.

Thank you for your kind words
Yes, if it was NOT for the HS I would NOT be a Christian.
I was very much a doubter, very much against God and Christ, very much against a God that "allows the suffering and pain of this world and does nothing" ( sound familiar?).
I was very much against a God that does nothing to protect children and those that can't protect themselves.
The issues I had could NOT have been resolved via the bible ( it was in some ways the root of the problem for me).
It had to be solved via the WORD of God, Via Christ and I was blessed enough to have found Christ because the HS opened my eyes to WHO was there all along.

[MichaelTzu]

Science “works” because of certain philosophical underpinnings, not least of which was the belief in causality which may now have been superseded by probability. I do not know if anyone has analysed the concept of “probability” to the same degree that David Hume analysed the concept of causality. However, it seems to be that “probability” is similar to “causality” in that they are not demonstrable. I cannot envisage an experiment to prove the existence of either concept in the physical universe. This also applies to such concepts as zero. So it seems to me that science uses mental processes to create via observations theories that can be tested - but still some things have to be assumed and the things assumed are themselves not physical phenomena but mental. So it seems to me that science cannot be purely materialistic since much of what passes for science exists not at a physical level but a mental level and no amount of trying to equate physical with mental phenomena can work. Mental phenomena are simply not reducible to physical.

So whilst the practice of science is useful it is not a pursuit of absolute certainty or truth - so is a red herring. As Karl Popper observed the very usefulness of science is the fact that to be science it must be refutable in some way.

Now it seems to me that a belief in or desire to believe in or an investigation into the existence of God must start with an analysis of what that word could mean. From our personal experience and even in the scientific discipline we seek reasons why things happen, whether we express this in terms of causality or probability. But a fundamental element of the concept of God is that God cannot be an effect or the result of probability otherwise we are simply stepping onto an infinite regress. The buck has to stop somewhere and with God believers the buck stops with God and with science believers the buck has yet to stop but quite possibly may stop with the big bang - or is that start. I am uncertain.

So there can be nothing and no thing before God. God did not begin. Unlike everything in our daily lives. Even our existence has a beginning and an end. So God if such exists must be eternal. If God is eternal then God cannot be temporal and must exist always. Now all our experiences have a beginning and an end so how could God be an experience? It could not.

If God exists then God must exist somewhere but if God exists somewhere then there is somewhere where God does not exist. If there is somewhere where God does not exist then God cannot be the ultimate cause as there will be something existing outside God that is other than God. If something exists inside God then that means God must have an inside and an outside. This cannot be possible for if so there would have to be a boundary between the two and if God is divisible then God cannot a unity so there would be more than one God and that gets us back to square one and the issue of causality.

So if God exists then God must be a Unity, Eternal, and Absolute. And that means that God cannot act since action requires a minimum of two things. Cannot have intentions. Cannot have attributes. Cannot have location. Cannot be on the side of the righteous or evil. In fact is way beyond any real conception or understanding by any effect. So God cannot act as a cause of the universe.

In the Bible it is written that Jesus said “I and my Father are One”. In The Tao Te Ching Lao Tzu wrote “The Self watches as the Ten Thousand Things rise and fall”. In many religious texts there are references or expressions of realisations made by humans. Kabir, Rumi, Krishna etc. alluding to a unity that is real and of this world that is unreal. Expressed in the language of their day. This is not proof. Definitely not. But can suggest the possibility.

For example, if I light a match. The flame will be real. Until it is extinguished. And so the realness of the flame was temporal. It was only real for a short duration. So whether a flame, you or I, or this universe all existence is temporal and as such not really “real”. As Shakespeare wrote (allegedly) “All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances”. And what applies to man also applies to all things that begin in time. They end in time. And and as such are ephemeral.

Your life is the most precious thing you have. So before asking does God exist I would kindly suggest that any investigation begins with oneself - know your self and you will know God. Except that you cannot know God only be God. And if you do you will realise that there is only One Thing everywhere.

Finally, it does not matter whether you believe what you have just read or not. For belief is simply ignorance masquerading as hope. And religions perpetuate hope.

[Beanybag]

Science “works” because of certain philosophical underpinnings, not least of which was the belief in causality which may now have been superseded by probability. I do not know if anyone has analysed the concept of “probability” to the same degree that David Hume analysed the concept of causality. However, it seems to be that “probability” is similar to “causality” in that they are not demonstrable. I cannot envisage an experiment to prove the existence of either concept in the physical universe. This also applies to such concepts as zero. So it seems to me that science uses mental processes to create via observations theories that can be tested - but still some things have to be assumed and the things assumed are themselves not physical phenomena but mental. So it seems to me that science cannot be purely materialistic since much of what passes for science exists not at a physical level but a mental level and no amount of trying to equate physical with mental phenomena can work. Mental phenomena are simply not reducible to physical.

Your conclusion remains to be seen - what these phenomena are is still up for question. It would seem many mental phenomena are actually reducible to physical, with the exception of feeling and intent. Most mathematicians happen to be Platoists with respect to mathematical concepts (such as zero, numbers, etc.) and the seeming uniformity of nature is due to this Platonic heaven as well - it may well not be the case, but that would still be one possible option that would allow for physical concepts (as much as they can be).

So whilst the practice of science is useful it is not a pursuit of absolute certainty or truth - so is a red herring. As Karl Popper observed the very usefulness of science is the fact that to be science it must be refutable in some way.

I'm still not sure. The basic tenants behind science of skepticism, falsifiability, fallibility, experimentation/evidence (these less so), these all seem very practical in any search for truth and I would hesitate before abandoning them so quickly. The scientific method has proved itself to be very valuable and needs to be constantly examined philosophically. I don't think Hume did it justice by dismissing it as a fallacy of induction and it would seem history has proved it otherwise.

Now, it could be very much that what you said is true with most respects and that science does indeed have epistemic limits. I'd just like to hold off on that conclusion for now until we can better tell otherwise. Science may prove more useful than we can possibly know.

One other interesting thing I'd like to point out is that in all your analysis of God you have presumed his nature to be subject to logic - I can't really see why this is necessarily the case (hard to conceive of nonexistence, if not impossible) , but it seems to be the assumption is necessary if we are to get any conceivable idea of what God is. I'll end this with.. I don't really have any disagreements with your post so much as I think you can't know many of the things you purported to know with complete certainty and I'm not sure they entirely follow. But I'm sure others will have their disagreements.

[1over137]

Now all our experiences have a beginning and an end so how could God be an experience? It could not.

Why it could not?

If God exists then God must exist somewhere but if God exists somewhere then there is somewhere where God does not exist. If there is somewhere where God does not exist then God cannot be the ultimate cause as there will be something existing outside God that is other than God.

What do you mean by 'exist'? He can also be everywhere, or not? He can get everywhere he wants to, or no?

[PaulSacramento]

One of the things we really must do in regards to God is to understand that, no matter how many human attributes we attribute to Him so that we can try to understand Him, He is NOT Human.
God does NOT view life, death, time, present, past, future, anything really, the was we do.
We perceive these things and God KNOWS them.
We are slaves to our senses and experiences, God is BEYOND them.
We have no clue about God's nature other than what we can TRY to understand at any give point in time, with the sum of what we know and experience at that given time.
God transcends all methods of "getting to know Him".
So, at best, we can conceive that which "nothing greater can be conceived" and that is the BEGINNING of understanding God.

[Beanybag]

Now all our experiences have a beginning and an end so how could God be an experience? It could not.

Why it could not?

By his definition of experience, God could not qualify since God is timeless and experiences only occur temporally. However, when in a discussion about a supernatural being, we must be careful when applying our definitions of things. Is there a difference between a supernatural, timeless experience and a 'physical' one?

[1over137]

Now all our experiences have a beginning and an end so how could God be an experience? It could not.

Why it could not?

By his definition of experience, God could not qualify since God is timeless and experiences only occur temporally. However, when in a discussion about a supernatural being, we must be careful when applying our definitions of things. Is there a difference between a supernatural, timeless experience and a 'physical' one?

Oh, sorry. Yes, God does not equal experience. But it does not mean that we cannot experience Him.