Ray wrote:No, I'm not. I would be happy with circumstantial evidence for the existence of a Christian god which wasn't better explained by something else, or at the limit, the admission "I just don't know". The part in italics is important: many of the received theories for the existence of God (the argument from design for example) I think are circumstantial evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe, but that is a long way from offering any support for an omniscient, omnipresent, immaterial being who sent his son to die for the sins of the human race.
Actually you would be suprised that some "Christians" deny God's total omniscience by denying He knows precisely what we are going to do in the future (e.g., Gregory Boyd is one although he himself tends to think such doesn't make God not omniscient). Not that I take this view as I think it unnecessary, but it does show there can be a wide range of opinion within Christianity on qualities "we think" God has. I don't think anyone will ever to be able to nail down God's qualities exactly and say "this is God." We can only draw from logic, experience, science, even tradition and whatever other means God has decided to reveal Himself through. I believe we only know as much as God has revealed and allowed to be revealed, but we will never fully comprehend or entirely understand God. To say otherwise, would to most Christians be to take away from God... yet we do believe God has revealed certain things to us, which also happen to highlight certain traits.
Ray wrote:(As it happens I think the argument from design is fallacious, but since it doesn't go very far towards establishing a Christian god anyway, that shouldn't be too bothersome for this forum)
In what way do you think it is fallacious, or were you just meaning you find it unpersuasive? You are right though that such an argument would not justify the Christian God anyway, only that God exists. The second fundamental truth relevant to Christianity after God exists, is that God has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus Christ. So given someone accepts the first, the second becomes an important question.
Actually, something I have often wondered is, if God really did show up, in personam, in modern day Sacramento, how would s/he prove who she was? What would persuade you that a person who claimed to be God (or the son of God) actually was? I think this is an important question, since from my knowledge of the New Testament (which is rusty, I confess) Jesus didn't do anything too outrageously supernatural (ok, he produced a few fishes and loaves; walked on water, but no *real* showstoppers), and indeed had trouble convincing people himself.
Actually within the gospels, Jesus performed many miracles and healings and thousands apparently flocked to him. But you're right that many did not "see" Him for who He was, yet Christ did not come to convince and funnily enough even used parables so only those who sought understanding would understand what He was saying (
Matt 13:10+). His works and mircales were eventually used as evidence He was God. Christ also claimed to be God, which was one reason the Pharisees disliked him (blasphemy)--infact they reasoned Jesus obtained his power from demons (Matt 9:34). In addition,
Christ fulfilled many prophecies expected of Messiah. Perhaps if God was coming to Earth as a human we might be able to expect some notice in advance?
And perhaps it would be expected someone claiming to be God would be immortal. Infact this is why Jesus' followers were so distressed at Jesus' crucifixion. Though they loved Jesus, His crucifixtion would have symbolised, if anything, that He was cursed by God rather than God. Yet, Christ's resurrection is what would have proven His claims to be God. And I believe there are
some very good reasons for believing in a literal resurrection. Sure one can always ignore any evidence or argue them away to stick with physicalist assumptions, but I think the evidence we have is quite convincing if our presumptions don't rule out the possibility of God's existence.
Ray wrote:K wrote:I agree, science can be used to rule out certain forms of Christian viewpoints. For example, I consider it a given the young-earth creationist position is wrong.
Hmm, I wonder if our Trojan friend would agree with that! But the more serious question is this: if science and philosophy can be used to rule out
all (prevailing) Christian viewpoints then, notwithstanding the possibility that a new and compelling argument might present itself (such as the arrival of God in person in Sacramento), if and until it does, what is your position?
While I believe science and philosophy can be used to rule out certain Christian positions, this is perhaps more a shaping of Christian doctrine within Christianity. There are many different Christian doctrines held within Christianity, but ruling out one for another, does not really mean one whole "Christian position" is ruled out--only that a particular Christian doctrine isn't acceptible. Christianity is malleable when it comes to secondary issues like that of Biblical inerrancy, evolution, etc (though these are obviously all important issues for Christians). It is perhaps what frustrates Atheists, as they think they've got a solid argument against Christianity, only to find someone with differing Christian viewpoint catches them offguard.
But lets say I was really compelled by the persuasiveness of new arguments to think Christianity isn't true. I would perhaps be in a rational dilemma. "Reason" is certainly one way we gain knowledge, but then there is also "experience." When you think about it, reason actually depends upon our experiences in order to function. Without any experiences there would be nothing to reason about. Yet at the same time, without reason, we couldn't reflect on our experiences. To add something additional, I believe Modernism by placing such value on empiricism and rationalism has often relegated one's experiences in life as unimportant. This is possibly why many become involved Post-Modernism where personal experiences are more uplifted although reason is often downplayed.
That said, I strongly trust my experiences with God and feel I know who He is on some personal level. I had a link somewhere (can't find it right now
) that such experiences aren't in anyway unreal, but neuroscience has shown they are generally just as real as if you were seeing an apple on a table. Whether such experiences really involve God or are self-induced I suppose will remain an open question, but I am sincerely convinced of God's reality through them.
So to say Christianity is totally ruled out, would in a sense be like if you go to visit someone at their home at night but you're not sure if they're home. You may see the light on in the house, hear some voices as you approach the door and some laughter. All the signs are that someone is home. Yet, when you knock and someone answers the door, all those signs become negligable and nothing could really destroy your belief that someone is home, unless you become so skeptical of the reliability of your experiences that the person before you is really imagined. That of course, is always an option
. But if you trust that experience, then you would I suppose be in a kind of rational dilemma if someone presented compelling arguments against believing someone was home.
I'm not sure I dealt with your words in the way you desired, but I just can't imagine accepting as untrue everything that I am convinced of.
Ray wrote:In other words, would there be any point at which you would be prepared to acknowledge (after Lakatos and Kuhn) that the paradigm has degenerated, and a new research program is needed? To maintain your credibility as a scientist, there must be a point where you find the proverbial Oolon Colluphid Trilogy persuasive, mustn't there?
Perhaps a part of my previous response in this message answers this somewhat. I find it really hard seeing a "point" that would enable me to drop what I am currently convicted of, especially when I think the Christian paradigm is strengthening rather than weakening as I learn and experience more and more. It just makes so much sense to me... And out of all other religions (research programs?), a significant theological point I find with Christianity, is that it is the only faith I've found where God reaches down to us in our sins. I've noticed within others there is an emphasis on good works and working your way up, but if God is
all-righteous then I see it as impossible for God to accept us with even just one blemish--unless God makes a way.
Ray wrote:As for kiwi jokes - there aren't any, are there?
I've heard a few -- I'm sure I could dig some up.
Kurieuo.
PS. I sent a PM regarding some other things in your first message, not sure if you read it yet.
