I am just back from Orlando, Florida, which is one of my favorite trips of the year as I participate in Student Leadership University. I did a series on worldview issues as well as answered questions for students, and one of the questions asked was “If you can’t see God, how can you really know that God exists?”
It is not uncommon for skeptics to suppose that we as Christians are irrational for believing in a God that we simply cannot see. In reality, it’s irrational for skeptics to presuppose that what cannot be seen doesn’t exist! The fact that something that cannot be seen does not presuppose that something doesn’t exist. We know black holes, electrons, the laws of logic, and the law of gravity all exist despite the fact we can’t see them! Indeed even a full blown empiricist holds fast to the law of gravity if he is standing on top of the Eiffel Tower.
Not only that, but as King David exudes, “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). Or in the words of the apostle Paul, “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). If you want to put it another way, the order and complexity of the visible, physical, universe eloquently testify to the existence of an uncaused first cause.
One final point, God can be seen through the person and work of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul explains that “in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). Indeed, it is the incarnation of Jesus Christ that is the supreme act of God’s self-revelation. Through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, we experience the power and the presence of God in a way that is more fundamentally real than even our perceptions of the physical world in which we dwell. Now we see but a poor reflection, just like in a mirror; but then one day in heaven we’re going to see face to face. Now we know in part, then we’ll know fully just as we too are fully known (1 Corinthians 13:12).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
13 comments:
I agree that we believe in all sorts of things that we cannot see. However what we do see is the effects of these phenomena. We see the trees move due to the wind, we see a brightly shining light bulb due to the flow of electrons, we see an apple fall to the eartth due to the effect of gravity. I don't understand how anyone can look at the history of the world before and after Christ and not see that somehow the life of this one man changed the direction of mankind. Every good thing in our society is the direct result of this one man's life. Has anyone at any time abolished slavery in the name of allah? Unfortunately that was so long ago that we have foegotten how miserable life was two thousand years ago. Of course all one has to do is look at societies where the influence of Chist has been held at bay. Anybody want to immigrate to Saudi Arabia?
As a skeptic I can tell you that not being able to "see" God in the literal sense is the least of my reasons for not believing. If you look at all recorded history it is abundantly clear that every culture always created myths to explain the creation of the universe and the origins of mankind. None have successfully convinced me or other skeptics that God/Gods are a believable explanation because what I do see is that we are on our own here with zero intervention from anything supernatural. Christians suffer and die just like us Atheists. I choose to not devote all of my time, energy and brain power to a non-existent entity based on unfounded events & "miracles" that supposedly occurred thousands of years ago but, ironically, do not happen today or promises of paradise after I die.
As an atheist/skeptic you already believe in at least two supernatural events. Science indicates that the universe began from an infinately small singularity, i.e. nothing. Scientists tell you that life began from the random accumalation of inanimate molecules. Neither of these events can be explained by any known law of physics, chemistry, or biology. Both of these events occured one time in the history of the universe, and defy the defination of science. Both of these events are beyond the laws of nature, defy common sense, and are therefor supernatural. The only question is who or what is the Author.
I will tell you a true story. I have a cousin who was deeply involved in drugs. he owed money to his dealer which he did not have, The dealer and his gang kidnapped this young man with the intent to kill him. My mother, when informed that he was missing, got on her knees and prayed to the Lord of the Universe to send his angels to protect this man from harm. The next day my cousin turned up, related the story that he had been kidnapped, but was released at the insistance of a gang of young women who were involved with this drug gang. This female gang called themselves the angels. Was this a miracle? I can assure you that the people involved think it is.
To anonymous: Science tells me nothing of the sort. Science proves to me that every "thing" came about and continues to come about as a result of unquantifiable (as of yet) numbers of unquantifiable (as of yet) singular events. The key to your fourth sentence is in the word "known" and my response again is "as of yet". The issue with your fifth sentence is in the word "one". Neither you nor I know how many times life has formed in this universe. Just because the answer is not yet known doesn't mean it is unknowable. Scientists work diligently and passionately to uncover the mysteries of this universe. They have already uncovered millions of explanations and will uncover the rest. The only question is not "who" but "how". If it's too complicated to figure out (as it is for me) feel free to ride on the extraordinarily gifted and enlightened coat tails of those who have the tenacity and passion to figure it out. There is no need to dump all the "as of yet" unknown into a supernatural bucket and move on without further question(s). There is no reason to give up on expecting/needing/wanting/demanding the truth. When I look at the history of humanity I see those who will not rest until they know how, those who really don't care and never ask how, and those who are too afraid or apathetic to reach further. Why do you believe in Jesus Christ and not Zeus?
With regard to your personal story: How many mothers have prayed for the safe return/well-being of their offspring only to be broken-hearted when their tale ends with death? I can tell you with great certainty the answer, inevitably, is 100%.
To anonymous: Science tells me nothing of the sort. Science proves to me that every "thing" came about and continues to come about as a result of unquantifiable (as of yet) numbers of unquantifiable (as of yet) singular events. The key to your fourth sentence is in the word "known" and my response again is "as of yet". The issue with your fifth sentence is in the word "one". Neither you nor I know how many times life has formed in this universe. Just because the answer is not yet known doesn't mean it is unknowable. Scientists work diligently and passionately to uncover the mysteries of this universe. They have already uncovered millions of explanations and will uncover the rest. The only question is not "who" but "how". If it's too complicated to figure out (as it is for me) feel free to ride on the extraordinarily gifted and enlightened coat tails of those who have the tenacity and passion to figure it out. There is no need to dump all the "as of yet" unknown into a supernatural bucket and move on without further question(s). There is no reason to give up on expecting/needing/wanting/demanding the truth. When I look at the history of humanity I see those who will not rest until they know how, those who really don't care and never ask how, and those who are too afraid or apathetic to reach further. Why do you believe in Jesus Christ and not Zeus?
With regard to your personal story: How many mothers have prayed for the safe return/well-being of their offspring only to be broken-hearted when their tale ends with death? I can tell you with great certainty the answer, inevitably, is 100%.
Beagle you disappoint me: you put your faith in men. To quote Elrond , Lord of Rivendell, "men are weak". Let's look at what some of these scientists say:
Richard Dawkin, author and evangelical atheist: "my philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true..."
Richard Lewontin, professor at Harvard: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material cause to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
These scientists have a philosophical commitment to materialism and they admit as much. They rule out all but materialistic conclusions prior to looking at the scientific data. You're right, these scientists are passionate, passionate about maintaining their preeminence in society as the arbiters of truth. Of course there are scientists who look at the scientific data without the lens of philosophical materialism and see the evidence for design. But I am sure you would not be thinking of these scientists, as that would lead to a source of intellegence outside of the natural world.
I will leave you with one more quotation from Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker", page1 "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose."
I would suggest that if something appears to be designed, and there is no other natural explanation, you have to consider the possibility that it just might be designed. It would be negligent to do otherwise, would it not?
"They rule out all but materialistic conclusions prior to looking at the scientific data." Huh?
Beagle, I certainly agree that mankind seems to have a need for something outside himself to give life meaning. It would seem odd that man would have this desire unless there is some object for which that desire is intended. I have a desire for food, for beauty, for love. I generally find that there is a reality to satisfy those desires. In desparation men have eaten the bark off of a tree, but that doesn't mean real food does not exist.
You say that you cannot accept the possibility of a supernatural being because of human suffering. But how do you know that there is human suffering unless you have some standard that you compare reality to, and find that reality comes up short to what it ought to be? If this universe is nothing but molecules in motion, then human suffering is nothing but a social construct. In fact most of what we call human suffering is merely Darwinianism in its finest hour, the strong preying upon the weak. The lion(king of beats) doesn't pick out the biggest water buffalo for his next meal, but he rather looks for an injured animal or a small calf. We see this behavior in nature and call it survival of the fittest, we see it in the human race and we call it suffering. Is this mersly chauvinism? Or does this "created in the image of God" really mean something? Is all of human intelligence simply a by-product of the ability to organize a hunting party to bring down a wooly mammoth?
You ask why I believe in Jesus Christ rather Zeus. Zeus was a mere demigod born of Cronus. He was part of the universe, immortal but not eternal. Besides the Greek myths teach that the universe is eternal. Clearly this doesn't fit with reality.
The Bible on the other hand teaches that God is outside the universe, eternal, and not limited by time and space. The Bible teaches that God created the universe in an instant from nothing. This fits the science(Big Bang). Of course the next thing I find amazing, because the first thing God creates is light. Now I am sure that the Big Bang released electromagnetic radiation, but how the author of Genesis could get this right without being told is beyond me, because the sun is not created until the fourth day. God populates the earth with plants and animals on the fifth and sixth days, late in the creation story. That fits the science as well. We know that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, however most major animal groups don't appear until about 454 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion which lasted only 5 or 10 million years. Moreover these life forms appear suddenly and fully formed, without any apparent transitional forms being found. Finally mankind is the last creation. That seems to fit the science as well. There is no documentation of any new species coming into existence since mankind came on the scene. And that includes the fact that man has been attempting to accomplish this feat through natural and artificial means for decades and in some cases centuries if you include dog breeding.
The science seems to fit a creation story for the origin of life on this planet. The one thing it clearly does not fit is a Darwinian model which predicts a slow methodical tramsformation of one life form into another. At the very least we should see an occasional new species appear. And if we were to create a new species through our scientific experimentation, I don't think you could call it evolution unless you are willing to call the scientist an unintellegent life form.
And finally the death and resurection of Christ is documented history.
Anonymous puts HIS faith in men, the men who spread the rumor that the Bible is the Word of God. Good posts Beagle.
And transitional fossils DO exist.
"And finally the death and resurection of Christ is documented history."
Never has a more untrue statement ever been made on this planet. Documented by whom where, when? ROFL!
Beagle I think you are over your head in this conversation. If you don't understand that everyone has a bias that they bring to this conversation, then your understanding of human nature is lacking. You could say that I have my own bias, and I can't deny that. The difference is that I have looked at the evidence, and you have not.
There are three laws of thermodynamics and four forces in nature that we have to explain the universe, and that's all there is. None of these can explain the origin of life.
The origin of the universe from nothing is accepted science. However, it took years for the scientific community to accept this notion. Why? Simple, Darwinian evolution requires infinate time. With infinate time the impossible can occur. Infinity minus one only equals more chaos.
You need to understand that what you believe you accept by blind faith. And you place your faith with a group that has been misleading you since Aristotle first proposed that the heavenly bodies were embedded in glass spheres revolving around the Earth.
There is scientific experimentation which gives us information. There is speculation by scientists to explain events that cannot be accounted for by science; without evidence this is science fiction. You are relying on the "science of the gaps" for your atheistic faith.
Post a Comment