Evidence for God from Science

Atticus Finch wrote:

FFC wrote: So if you could find some real evidence that Jesus really was God in the flesh you would receive Him as your Lord and Savior?

Well, real evidence is a tricky name for something. Are the Gospels real evidence? Paul's letters?

Believe me, I would readily accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour if one could show me a convincing argument for such things. I would love to. It would make life very pleasant and very simple. I just haven't been shown a convincing statement which can convince me.

Atticus, there are lots of resources out there by men who devoted much time to proving the authenticity of the bible. If this is your biggest obstacle then I would check them out.

Atticus Finch wrote:Believe me, I would readily accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour if one could show me a convincing argument for such things. I would love to. It would make life very pleasant and very simple. I just haven't been shown a convincing statement which can convince me.

Atticus, on this thread here I responded to your request for convincing arguments concerning Jesus by suggesting that you read Lee Strobel's book called The Case for Christ. I also gave a quick review of the book, a very readable one packed with convincing argument.

My questions for you: Have you made any effort to follow up on this suggestion? Or what efforts have you made to discover these arguments that exist?

It is very difficult to give people the answers they are seeking if they do not take steps in that direction. I cannot copy in full the arguments in that book to this thread, but I have given you an excellent reference.

There is also the difficulty that what is convincing for one person is not necessarily so for another. I think if you were to ask every Christian here what piece of evidence it was that convinced them about Jesus, you will probably find a lot of different answers.

It might help us to respond (and for you to get somewhere worthwhile yourself) if you would refine your doubts to be far more specific. For instance "I don't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead because people just don't do that" and maybe as a question "what evidence exists to prove Jesus rose from the dead?"
I think Byblos is trying to get you to be more specific, going back to basics and trying to determine just what is the specific concern for you.

The other thing is that, when you are given a piece of evidence, you have a tendency to change course and go on to something else. I feel as though we are following you all over the place and nothing is dealt with through to any kind of completion. That will continue to be unsatisfying for you until such time you stop and address that specific issue.

Often people have a very distorted view of Christianity which makes it very sensible that they do not believe in what they think it is. We have probably all needed to put away preconceived ideas and prejudices in order to discover the truth which is believable. I would like to suggest to you that truth is believable, and therefore it is that which we need to find. But when I hear you say things like "It is not wise to rest your arguments on faith" (as you do on another thread) then I see that you have accepted a view that is proving an obstacle to you in reaching the truth. I learn that your idea of faith is obviously not the same as mine. This is the work that you need to do - to examine your own prejudices and misperceptions rather than to tell Christians that they are not wise.

I make these suggestions here for you to think about. I personally find myself tiring very quickly when it comes to responding to someone who keeps heading off elsewhere. If you want to benefit from responses then you need to engage with them fully in a rational and meaningful way, seeking to find where the obstacles are to your own disbelief rather than immediately assuming that Christianity is silly or wrong or whatever. Assumptions need to be validated.

BTW, what I have written here may help you to understand why you are being seen as less of a sincere seeker and more as a straight-out critic of Christianity.

Judah wrote:I think Byblos is trying to get you to be more specific, going back to basics and trying to determine just what is the specific concern for you.

Exactly, thanks Judah.

Atticus, I would like to get to the point that you most object to or that you find is the biggest obstacle to you considering Christ, then we'll tackle that and that alone. If we make headway we'll continue on, otherwise we'll just keep hammering it until either of us says we're done, we're not making any progress.

The way I see it, that point is Christ and his deity. Belief in christianity rises or falls on that and that alone. Judah's right, if you truly are interested in exploring more, Lee Strobel's book is an excellent source. It contains much, much more information than what we can offer you here on a discussion board. If you want a quick reference to a trinity discussion, here's a link to a long and exhausting (though by no means exhaustive) thread called The Holy Trinity. You will see many objections to the trinity in that thread but in its totality, it is a good scriptural source for it. The council of Nicea didn't invent the trinity, it merely affirmed it as more and more pagan and gnostic ideas were creeping up at the time and an official doctrine needed to be pronounced.

It's up to you how you want to proceed from here. We see you're sincere enough in your quest, you won't have to do it alone, we'll walk with you.

God bless,

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:The Holy Trinity. You will see many objections to the trinity in that thread but in its totality, it is a good scriptural source for it.

I have been reading through this already. That's why my responses to certain threads elsewhere I have been slow to answer. I have several lengthy topics bookmarked and try to finish one at each sitting.

A very simple question I offer for explanation of Trinity is this: If one were raised alone in the jungle or woods (i'm thinking Jungle Book style now...haha) it would be quite probable to come to the conclusion that a God exists. The view would be unobstructed by all human thought other than the person's own. He could conclude that something made him and everything else. Isn't this easy to imagine? I doubt it would ever come to be that a person might imagine a Trinity that God exists as. Perhaps he could imagine a god of thunder, a god of rain, a god of wind, etc; but never a God who exists as we understand. Since nature offers us a simple view of complex things, isn't it simpler to assume that God is most likely one alone rather than of three persons and such?

Christians believe God has revealed Himself in a Trinitarian understanding, for example, take the traditional understanding of the plurality "Let us create..." found in the opening book and chapter of Genesis 1. Regarding this chapter Victor Hamilton notes in his Book of Genesis: "It is one thing to say the author of Gen. 1 was not schooled in the intracacies of Christian dogma [for example, the exact details of Trinitarian thought]. It is another thing to say he was theologically too primitive or naive to handle such ideas as plurality within unity." It is further interesting that humankind (man+woman) are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), rather than a singular human being. Thus suggests there is a relationality of some sort in man+woman which is comparable to God. As such, a social conception of God does not appear to be foreign to pre-Christian theology.

Furthermore, contemporary post-modern thought tends to back the idea that persons can only exist in relation to one another, for it is in relation to another that we gain our own identity. Accordingly, there is no self except in relation to others. Thus, contemporary post-modern thought would lend support to the idea that a personal God could only exist alone if God is social within Himself.

Or take the old idea of those who accept God to be love or the source of love. Yet, love involves relationship. Thus, if God once existed before creation and to be truly loving requires a social relationality of some sort, then God must be social by nature if God is love, being lover and the beloved. Unless one chooses to advocate God was once only potentially loving, rather than love being an eternal part of God, than a monotheistic conception of an eternally loving God is only logical given a social understanding God's nature.

Given my extended commentary above, lets now take a look at your statements. Does the fact that one would not normally develop an understanding of God in a social manner, rule out a social understanding of God? Besides the fact people have come to understand God in a social manner, I do not how see it follows a social understanding of God is wrong if noone would normally develop such an understanding. Further, Christians generally believe a social understanding is arrived at through God's revelation and community rather than pure individual thought. So perhaps the fact that such an idea of God is so unthinkable and unimaginable, that we would not expect any one person to come up with it, that such supports it being a true revelation from God about Himself?

Kurieuo

Atticus Finch wrote:

Byblos wrote:The Holy Trinity. You will see many objections to the trinity in that thread but in its totality, it is a good scriptural source for it.

I have been reading through this already. That's why my responses to certain threads elsewhere I have been slow to answer. I have several lengthy topics bookmarked and try to finish one at each sitting.

A very simple question I offer for explanation of Trinity is this: If one were raised alone in the jungle or woods (i'm thinking Jungle Book style now...haha) it would be quite probable to come to the conclusion that a God exists. The view would be unobstructed by all human thought other than the person's own. He could conclude that something made him and everything else. Isn't this easy to imagine? I doubt it would ever come to be that a person might imagine a Trinity that God exists as. Perhaps he could imagine a god of thunder, a god of rain, a god of wind, etc; but never a God who exists as we understand. Since nature offers us a simple view of complex things, isn't it simpler to assume that God is most likely one alone rather than of three persons and such?

Your question presumes that God is a concept initiated by man. If that were the case then, certainly what you say could be logical.

However, what is it that gives man the idea that God exists in the first place? Pascal approached this and concluded that it is a reflection that God created us in the first place with that need. He called it a God-Shaped Vacuum.

It is precisely that God as revealed in the Bible reveals things about Himself to us that go counter to how we would create God to be if it were up to us, that in fact make it so likely to be true.